Nickname unavailable
2/3/2013 6:40:00 AM
On Feb 2, 8:05 am, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:16 am, Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 11:00 pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > hi lisa,
>
> > you do understand that a "CONSERVATIVE" can never change course. they
> > always choose the wrong policy, and of course it always fails, then
> > they double down, if doubling down does not work, then they triple
> > down, and call liberals names.
> > there is not amount of logic that will show them how stupid they are,
> > its government spending that is the fault. even though austerity is
> > not spending enough, or cutting spending.
> > here is what i have gone thru lately trying to get idiots to
> > understand basic economics.
>
> > ok, i will try this again. the first time i posted, i might have made
> > it to difficult for "THE CONSERVATIVE" to understand.
>
> > which economic theory is more plausible, demand for goods and services
> > is wage driven, or, showering the already filthy rich with tax cuts,
> > and breaking unions driving up huge wealth inequalities, will
> > magically sell goods and services?
>
> > i am betting that "CONSERVATIVES" will choose the latter:)))
>
> > the responses were, well, incoherent, to out of this world.
>
> > so i tried again, this time i shortened it up hoping to encourage the
> > simpletons("CONSERVATIVES"), to at least have some coherence.
>
> > which economic theory is more plausible, raising your wages to make
> > paying your debts more easy, or cutting your wages to make your debts
> > harder to pay back?
> > i bet "THE CONSERVATIVES" will pick the latter.
>
> > the responses were even more entertaining, including one who told me
> > i did not understand pricing. i said demand for goods and services is
> > wage driven, his response was that china makes stuff cheap. i said
> > china has little or no real internal demand and is a illusion, that
> > has to rely on the wages of the western worker.
> > another response which was very good, was that the "CONSERVATIVE" who
> > had no idea about how demand for goods and services worked, also was
> > pointed out that "THE CONSERVATIVE" had no idea how supply and demand
> > worked.
> > so now i am trying to make it even easier, here it is,
>
> > which economic theory is more plausible,
> > it takes money to make money, or, slashing your wages makes it easier
> > to pay down your now larger debts.
>
> > i bet "THE CONSERVATIVES" will choose the latter:)
> > and they did.
> > one idiot "CONSERVATIVE" kept asking what do you mean by making
> > money. completely out of this world.
>
> Hey Lance,
>
> It's useless to talk to a con. Totally useless.
>
> Lisa
yep,
"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way. I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.