Hey, Lint Head? I have a retort.

[BannedFromDU]

Lint Head (12,201 posts)

Russia bombs civilians and McCain blames Obama.


The GOP. Idiots all.

I feel a mic drop coming...

Bizarro Lint Head in an alternate universe (12,201 posts)

ISIS beheads civilians and DUmmies blames Bush.


Liberals. Idiots all.

And .

[Carl]

Your idiot child Oblamer just surrendered all of Europe to the muzzies and Putin.

[Mary Ann]

Your idiot child Oblamer just surrendered all of Europe to the muzzies and Putin.

But, it's all OK because, you know, Crusades.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Do you retards seriously think that 'Working for regime change in Syria' (Which actually meant funneling Libyan weapons to a lot of sketchy and unreliable rebel militias and other shenanigans) wouldn't lead to Assad shooting back and bombing their strongholds?  Countries like Syria do not have huge air fleets, an unlimited supply of PGMs, or an intrusive global electronic and signal intelligence operation.  If they are going to fight at all, they have to fight the old-fashioned way, which includes killing thousands and thousands of civilians with bombs and artillery because they are in the wrong place (For them) or just to break their will to harbor and support the opposition, just like we did to the cities of Japan and Germany when we did not have those toys, notwithstanding all the myth-building veneration afforded to that time now.

[obumazombie]

But, it's all OK because, you know, Crusades.

And owebuma didn't give it to them all tied up in a pretty bow.
He set it on fire first, from feckless lead from behind leadership, ignorance, and brazen incompetence.
Not to mention a warped worldview.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Do you retards seriously think that 'Working for regime change in Syria' (Which actually meant funneling Libyan weapons to a lot of sketchy and unreliable rebel militias and other shenanigans) wouldn't lead to Assad shooting back and bombing their strongholds?  Countries like Syria do not have huge air fleets, an unlimited supply of PGMs, or an intrusive global electronic and signal intelligence operation.  If they are going to fight at all, they have to fight the old-fashioned way, which includes killing thousands and thousands of civilians with bombs and artillery because they are in the wrong place (For them) or just to break their will to harbor and support the opposition, just like we did to the cities of Japan and Germany when we did not have those toys, notwithstanding all the myth-building veneration afforded to that time now.

It almost appears as if you're laboring under the assumption that Proglodytes set standards because they have principles or something.

They do not have principles. They do not care about civilian deaths.

What they want is to set a standard to stymie those they disapprove of. But as soon as the opposition is hobbled or it becomes inconvenient to their own cause they will free themselves from any such standard.

To respond to them in any other manner is self-defeating.

[thundley4]

It almost appears as if you're laboring under the assumption that Proglodytes set standards because they have principles or something.

They do not have principles. They do not care about civilian deaths.

What they want is to set a standard to stymie those they disapprove of. But as soon as the opposition is hobbled or it becomes inconvenient to their own cause they will free themselves from any such standard.

To respond to them in any other manner is self-defeating.

How many times have we seen the DUmmies opine about their wet dream fantasies involving Obama using the US military against conservative groups here?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

How many times have we seen the DUmmies opine about their wet dream fantasies involving Obama using the US military against conservative groups here?

Every time.

[obumazombie]

It almost appears as if you're laboring under the assumption that Proglodytes set standards because they have principles or something.

They do not have principles. They do not care about civilian deaths.

What they want is to set a standard to stymie those they disapprove of. But as soon as the opposition is hobbled or it becomes inconvenient to their own cause they will free themselves from any such standard.

To respond to them in any other manner is self-defeating.

It makes me wonder just what Walter E. Williams was wondering.
Are lib/progs ignorant or dishonest...

Many people argue that liberals, socialists and progressives do not understand basic economics. I am not totally convinced about that.

Take the law of demand, for example, one of the fundamental principles of economics. It holds that the lower the cost of something the more people will take or do of it. Conversely, the higher the cost the less people will take or do something. By their actions, liberals fully understand the law of demand. Let's look at some proof.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales. Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales. In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed "violence taxes" on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns. Let's ignore the merit of these measures. They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand. They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

NBCBLK contributor Danielle Moodie-Mills said, "We need to stop misgendering people in the media, and there needs to be some type of fine that's put into place for ... media outlets ... that decide that they're just not going to call people by their name." What Moodie-Mills wants is for us to be obliged, if a man says he's a woman, to address him as her and, if a woman says she's a man, to address her as him. The basic point here is that Moodie-Mills acknowledges the fundamental law of demand when she calls for FCC fines for media people who "misgender" folks. By the way, if I claimed to be the king of Siam, I wonder whether she would support my demand that I be addressed as "your majesty."

In the Ohio Legislature, Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, introduced a bill to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or display toy guns. The ban would apply to any toy gun that a "reasonable person" could confuse with a real one. A $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail would be imposed for failure to obey the law. That's more evidence that liberals understand the law of demand. You want less of something? Just raise its cost.

Even San Francisco liberals and environmentalists understand the law of demand. They've proposed a ban that over the next four years would phase out the sale of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Violators could face fines of up to $1,000.

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once said, "We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" in order to make Americans give up their "love affair with the automobile." If gas prices rise high enough, Chu knows that Americans will drive less.

There you have it — abundant evidence that liberals, socialists and progressives understand the law of demand. But wait a minute. What about raising the cost of hiring workers through increases in the minimum wage?

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College professor of economics, wrote that raising the minimum wage "would reduce income inequality and poverty while boosting growth, without increasing unemployment." The leftist Center for Economic and Policy Research has written a paper whose title tells it all: "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?" The U.S. Department of Labor has a page on its website titled "Minimum Wage Mythbusters" (http://tinyurl.com/lt47co9), which relays a message from liberal economists: "Increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers."

What the liberals believe — and want us to believe — is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand. That's like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people. One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition.

I vote for both.


full article...



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/walter-e-williams/2015/09/25/liberal-reasoning-idiotic-or-just-plain-dishonest#sthash.9imJci7N.dpuf