Science And The Republicans' Annulment Of The Enlightenment

Global Warming is a religion and no amount of proof there has been little to no warming will deter them from trying to get into your wallet.

 

Can you liberals tell, that we are on to your tactics? or do you not see it? maybe you can't see it. You see it or you don't.
all conservatives are using liberal tactics against the liberals, When you talk about crap science like global warming we know
just how UN-scientific you really are. So we will not debate you on it anymore because more people do not believe in global
warming, then those who do, So the consensus in IN. end of story.

If I ran a company, and I had government off my back, I could pay less on government regulations and put that money to
use to hire more people, and I would have to compete with other company's to attract more workers, so i would have to pay
workers more then my competitors. opps, it just trickled down. gee, I wonder how that happened?


You liberals are UN-educated as hell. The consensus on that is IN.


....

 

Mine is not an opinion. Mine is a fact that your opinion about trickle down has been proven to be the ultimate fail.

 

The extra tax cuts given to the wealthy of Kansas in their failed trickle down Brownback experiment, didn't help Kansas one bit. Gee's, I wonder how that happened; http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06...te-cover-brownbacks-trickle-catastrophe.html?

 

If I used one state to prove my point, then something is wrong with my opinion. government may tell you what to think,
while I think for myself. this government is over 100 years old, and it''s now out dated. we are moving from an industrial age
to a more robust data age. so OUT with the current government that is old, outdated and to big and expensive for the new
age. The new age government is a small UN-expensive government, that's the new age. so you libs better catch up with the times.


Now smoke that.

....

 

Evidently the science for you is only politics since you only espouse the political opinion instead of any actual science. If you actually pay attention to the science you would know the alarmism is based on models that continue to diverge from reality.

 

Yes you stated opinion and only opinion.

You did not state fact.

Not surprising liberals lack comprehension of the difference.

 

ha ha ho ho he he haa ha hoo he he he he ho ha ha

Unless of course you are talking about the marketing that puts ideas into people's heads. People, that is, who are swayed by such efforts.

That's the point I've been trying to make. Companies, all companies, play games with prices to entice people to pay more for their products than they are worth.

 

"science"

 

So what is it that you want to replace the government with? A military styled Christian right wing conservative dictatorship?

 

So... umm... how's the Kool-Aid? Oh wait have I got some prime real estate for you at a price that you just can't beat!

 

Well... OK. If this is your response to what I posted, then we have nothing further to discuss, and you may continue to wallow in your ignorance.

 

Your previous response was just so party line perfect. Come on get real. The mystical invisible benevolent hand of the market making everything just as it should be. You can't possibly believe that can you? And those nice warm corporations who have nothing but your best intersect in mind?

By the things that other side says (other side from me) it seems that the primary propaganda push (ie brain washing) is to on one hand demonize the government and on the other pretend that those who suck the most out of the economy are our friends. Any of you conservatives ever consider the end game to the pill you've been swallowing? A few, very few, people controlling just about everything with no oversight or restraint. Where everyone else's freedom is just the freedom to do what they're told. But then that is the conservative way isn't it - the freedom to be just like everyone else.

 

True, average Americans can be bought off too.

 

In my original post, you clipped out everything I had presented, and ignored all of it. I'll give you another respectful shot at it:

The basic tenet of "trickle down", as I understand it, is this: In a healthy market, free of collusion, monopoly, and government price meddling, reduction of cost to business will always result in reduction of consumer prices. Essentially, some portion of the cost reduction will filter down into the pockets of you and I, because competition drives the price down.

This process was proven most recently by the price of oil dropping, quickly followed by the price of gasoline dropping. If what you say is true, the drop in price of oil would have had no effect on the consumer price of gasoline, and the oil companies would have just pocketed the windfall.

However, that did not happen. I gave a practical example earlier in the thread of how that very reduction of the cost of oil for the gasoline refineries really did put over $200 real dollars into my pocket over a month. Money that you claim the evil oil corporations would have just kept for themselves. Money that I instead used to purchase extra cool stuff for myself.

The corporations do not have my best interest in mind. They have only their shareholders best interest in mind. But, a healthy market will not allow them to do the things you are claiming because they have competition that forces them not to. Government's role is to make sure the market stays healthy; free of abuse, collusion, and monopoly. The rampant cronyism that currently grips our career politicians is the real problem, not corporations. Corporations will predictably seek to influence government to their advantage. It is the job of The People to send those corrupt politicians to the unemployment line, but we don't because we are too blinded by the 'evil corporations' and 'income inequality' rhetoric that is designed EXACTLY to divert our attention from the real problem.

"Party line perfect"... is, ironically, a perfect description of the above.

Government is not the problem, because as I said above, government does have a critical role to play in the market. Cronyism and influence buying within government, is the problem. This is not limited to one party, or one ideology. Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest beneficiaries of corporate dollars, and those corporate dollars have only one purpose, to buy influence. There are examples of this corruption throughout the political spectrum, there is no lily-white party.

I have respectfully shown that reduction of costs on business will directly benefit the consumer. I have given a real-world example of this process in action, and placed real dollars in my own pocket that came from it. If you buy gasoline, you have benefited from that example as well. Even though you have pocketed the windfall, you have demonized the very process that gave you that windfall, and then claimed that corporations would just pocket it themselves in offshore accounts, and not pass it along to the consumer, when clearly they did not.

Is it a stretch to believe that cost reduction in the form of lowering the tax and regulation burden on business would, predictably, have the same effect?