COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MeeMie said:
Lesson #1 in Broadcasting:
Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to...


MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, you may remember just yesterday said the attack on Rupert Murdoch at a hearing encapsulated what the British were feeling.

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that without the bailout, the country would be in "a depression."

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask the GOP Congressman:
"Do You Have A Degree In Economics?

Rep. Brooks responded:
"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors,"

According to his Congressional profile:
"Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics."



She should have done her homework a little better.
Click to expand...



Um, a BACHELOR'S degree in economics. And he never took a job in the field, meaning he has no experience in it at all. That means he's not qualified to do anything at all in the field other than maybe be a research assistant for some university.

The man is a career politician. He has NEVER worked in the private sector in his life - which is your key attack point on the credibility of any number of Democrats. How come lack of private sector experience only matters for Democrats?

Brooks wants the US to default. He thinks it wouldn't hurt the economy. And he uses his bachelor's degree + zero experience to dismiss the position of every single respected economist in the country. He's a moron and dangerous, worthy of a recall vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Brooks
 
vetteman said:
Because they are populists. That breed will spend a lot of time bending economic law in failed efforts to give the people what they want, instead of what they deserve, a sound economic system. read more Murray Rothbard and get educated before trifling with me again, thanks.
Click to expand...

so am i reading rothbard correctly in stating that true libertarians don't believe that the state should restrict immigration? it sure appears that way in this article in which he suggests that reagan's mainstream republican ticket was more libertarian than the libertarian ticket.

So watered down are our principles that we can already point to several key areas where Ronald Reagan is significantly more libertarian than [the ticket]. [The ticket] is against Nukes; Reagan is not. [The ticket] is for ERA; Reagan is for equal rights without the infusion of government. [The ticket] is for restricting Mexican immigration; Reagan is for a Common Market with Mexico, which presumably means free immigration. [The ticket] links welfare cuts to "full employment"; Reagan makes no such unnecessary link. And we are yet to be convinced that the proposed tax cut will be significantly bigger than the Reagan Kemp-Roth tax cut.
Click to expand...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard83.html
 
damn, this is interesting stuff.

from hayek's the constitution of liberty

One of Hayek's key points was that just because a majority does not like something, it does not have the right to forbid it. "The most conspicuous instance of this in our society," Hayek wrote, "is that of the treatment of homosexuality." After noting that men once believed that tolerating gays would expose them to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, Hayek added, "Where such factual beliefs do not prevail, private practice among adults, however abhorrent it may be to the majority, is not a proper subject for coercive action for a state."
Click to expand...

http://igfculturewatch.com/1999/10/13/gay-rights-on-the-right/

vette, as you labor through your studies, you've got some belief reconciling ahead of you.
 
cebalrai said:
Um, a BACHELOR'S degree in economics. And he never took a job in the field, meaning he has no experience in it at all. That means he's not qualified to do anything at all in the field other than maybe be a research assistant for some university.

The man is a career politician. He has NEVER worked in the private sector in his life - which is your key attack point on the credibility of any number of Democrats. How come lack of private sector experience only matters for Democrats?

Brooks wants the US to default. He thinks it wouldn't hurt the economy. And he uses his bachelor's degree + zero experience to dismiss the position of every single respected economist in the country. He's a moron and dangerous, worthy of a recall vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Brooks
Click to expand...

this is pretty pathetic

even for you

OH, BTW, NIGGER HAS LESS CREDENTIALS AND HE TALKS SHIT ABOUT THE ECONOMY

LOSER!
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
Blah blah blah.Blah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blah

I aint gonna talk about the IDEAL LOG, my best bud NIGGA! HO!

Instead I wil

Blah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blahBlah blah blah
Click to expand...

Oh, OK!:cool:
 
cebalrai said:
Um, a BACHELOR'S degree in economics. And he never took a job in the field, meaning he has no experience in it at all. That means he's not qualified to do anything at all in the field other than maybe be a research assistant for some university.

The man is a career politician. He has NEVER worked in the private sector in his life - which is your key attack point on the credibility of any number of Democrats. How come lack of private sector experience only matters for Democrats?

Brooks wants the US to default. He thinks it wouldn't hurt the economy. And he uses his bachelor's degree + zero experience to dismiss the position of every single respected economist in the country. He's a moron and dangerous, worthy of a recall vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Brooks
Click to expand...

funny

isnt

it

anyone

on the

other

side

is

a

DANGEROUS MORON

whereas YOUR NIGGER, cant grunt 3 words with a TP

LOSER
 
busybody said:
OH, BTW, NIGGER HAS LESS CREDENTIALS
Click to expand...

busybody said:
whereas YOUR NIGGER, cant grunt 3 words with a TP
Click to expand...

holocaust00_1.jpg


adolf-hitler-joke-4_681576c.jpg


LOL WHY ALL THE HATE? I WAS ONLY JUST TRYING TO CLEAR SOME SPACE IN MY COUNTRY GAHD DAMN WTF Y'ALL HATERS IT'S ONLY RACISM LOL
 
vetteman said:
So what are her fucking economic credentials to question his?
Click to expand...

The same as my medical credentials when I go to the doctor. I want to know before I start letting you cut me up that you've got the skills necessary to do it. So the same as my economics credentials when I'm looking for a tax guy or investment advisor. Just because I can't do something doesn't mean that your credentials aren't important.
 
George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for. The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars,so Putin writes him a check. Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes. When she is finished the devil informs her that the cost is 6 million dollars, so she writes him a check.Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is $5.00.When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA so cheaply.The devil smiles and replies, " Since Obama took over , the country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."
:cool:
 
vetteman said:
Not really, I was reading Hayek when you were still pooping your knickers.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which means you've likely forgotten most of it, at least the parts you don't agree with.

They say that the mind is the second thing that goes..
But by then you don't remember what the first thing was anyway.
 
vetteman said:
Not really, I was reading Hayek when you were still pooping your knickers.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well, apparently either you don't understand his philosophy or you pick and choose what is convenient for you.
 
vetteman said:
I've read the Bible too, and don't agree with everything in there either. Aside from Obama, what writer has ever held you to a hundred percent of his beliefs?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

your dismissive arrogance is why you are so easy to dismiss as a critical thinker.

there's nuance and in between to almost every argument and almost every philosophy. i am pretty certain that my posts bear out my belief in that.

you deal in absolutes though. you can't reconcile your diatribe about prop 8 in california and hayek, though. you're picking and choosing what suits you with no apparent rational consistency.
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Which means you've likely forgotten most of it, at least the parts you don't agree with.

They say that the mind is the second thing that goes..
But by then you don't remember what the first thing was anyway.
Click to expand...

Yours already left. Seek counseling, be a man.
 
cebalrai said:
Um, a BACHELOR'S degree in economics. And he never took a job in the field, meaning he has no experience in it at all. That means he's not qualified to do anything at all in the field other than maybe be a research assistant for some university.
Click to expand...

None of which invalidates the answer to her question; nor his answer.


Brewer attempted to discredit his qualifications by asking condescendingly,
“Do you have a degree in economics?”

A direct answer to her question.
"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors,"

You can tell by the look on her face the question wasn’t out of mere curiosity, but an attempted intellectual smackdown that ended up going hilariously awry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mtQyEd-zS4



Brooks actually has three degrees: political science, economics, and law.
As a lawyer, Brooks would have been experienced enough not to make Brewer’s mistake in a cross-examination, which is to ask a question without first knowing the answer.

Not only that, but Brewer was being flat-out rude as well as foolish;
MSNBC invited Brooks to appear to get his perspective on the issues.
If their hosts respond by belittling them, what does that say about MSNBC, its management, and the kind of invitations they make?

Since Brewer made an issue out of having an economics degree before engaging in economics debates, she must have a doctorate in the subject herself, right? Not exactly. According to her Wikipedia entry, Brewer has a baccalaureate in broadcast journalism. Apparently they didn’t teach interviewing skills at Syracuse, or logic either, as a requisite for the degree.


. .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
260
John_von_Neumann
J
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
5K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
811
bronzeage
bronzeage
4
Investing In a World of Make Believe
Replies
8
Views
263
eyer
E
Back
Top