6493 replies to this topic

[JoeyJoJo]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 8:33 AM, said:

Obama is proof positive black people are genetically predisposed to basketball.....because if I saw someone throw a baseball like Obama did i would assume they sucked at all sports for sure.

If I saw someone shoot a basketball like Obama, I would assume they sucked at basketball.I'm not saying I'm right about that, but man does he have an ugly shot. I have nothing to add to any real discussion going on in here.

[CaneBrain]

JoeyJoJo, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

If I saw someone shoot a basketball like Obama, I would assume they sucked at basketball.I'm not saying I'm right about that, but man does he have an ugly shot. I have nothing to add to any real discussion going on in here.

It's ugly but it goes in a lot. From that baseball toss, I would assume Obama was more the "missiles off the backboard" type.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 9:52 AM, said:

It's ugly but it goes in a lot. From that baseball toss, I would assume Obama was more the "Dresses in the closet" type.

[El Guapo]

JoeyJoJo, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 9:49 AM, said:

If I saw someone shoot a basketball like Obama, I would assume they sucked at basketball.I'm not saying I'm right about that, but man does he have an ugly shot. I have nothing to add to any real discussion going on in here.

I was thinking the same thing.Actually I was thinking, "Wait, Cane thinks he is good at basketball?"

[CaneBrain]

El Guapo, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:22 PM, said:

I was thinking the same thing.Actually I was thinking, "Wait, Cane thinks he is good at basketball?"

I think the correct phrasing would be "not bad". Because that baseball throw is the throw of a man who should be terrible at all sports.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

I think the correct phrasing would be "not bad". Because that baseball throw is the throw of a man who should be terrible at all sports.

[JoeyJoJo]

This is what my shot looks like.

[Balloon guy]

JoeyJoJo, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

This is what my shot looks like.

Did you know that only one white man has ever been a member of the Harlem Globetrotters back in 42-43?He is a buddy of mine's father. Or he was.

[brvheart]

strategy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:40 AM, said:

rude.

I certainly wasn't trying to be rude. I was seriously asking. I don't think LLY has any background in economics or economic theory at all.

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 7:33 AM, said:

You shouldn't, clearly. I'm an idiot. But you should listen to the professors of economics who agree with me.

No one thinks you're an idiot, but you know that, which is why you wrote that part. The bolded is probably a fair point, but then I would need to know who agrees with you. Krugman?

[CaneBrain]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:29 PM, said:

I certainly wasn't trying to be rude. I was seriously asking. I don't think LLY has any background in economics or economic theory at all.

A lot of people with lots of background in economics have been spectacularly wrong for about a decade now. I think it's all a bunch of voodoo at this point.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

A lot of people with lots of background in economics have been spectacularly wrong for about a decade now. I think it's all a bunch of voodoo at this point.

You mean that the experts...aren't really?Next you'll tell me the Alan Greenspan wasn't the perfect man for the job.Or that politicians have no clue how to help the economy.

[brvheart]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 9:03 AM, said:

Now who is the one who just knows best for others. You guys are going to be wildly disappointed in how little changes after November.

I hope you're right. The best thing that could possibly happen is that the repubs (which I am not grouping myself with) take over the house and senate and are able to stop the fiscal bleeding. The repubs won't be able to do anything with Obama in the White House, so the very best thing we can possibly hope for is "little change", until we can get a real leader.*fingers crossed*

[brvheart]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 9:03 AM, said:

Now who is the one who just knows best for others. You guys are going to be wildly disappointed in how little changes after November.

This is totally different. Telling poor people how to live and what to do throughout their day, is very different than having their life improve without them even knowing what's happening.

[CaneBrain]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:38 PM, said:

I hope you're right. The best thing that could possibly happen is that the repubs (which I am not grouping myself with) take over the house and senate and are able to stop the fiscal bleeding. The repubs won't be able to do anything with Obama in the White House, so the very best thing we can possibly hope for is "little change", until we can get a real leader.*fingers crossed*

yep just like the last time they were in charge! oops.Retaking the Senate would be almost impossible.....especially with independent Charlie Crist poised to win in Florida (woooo!).As for the 2nd part, you might want to figure out who you are going to run first in 2012......BG, some fields have experts I trust (like medicine or law). Economics is a giant guessing game as far as I can tell.

[brvheart]

strategy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 9:30 AM, said:

what is the functional difference between a tax break without a reduction in spending vs. an unfunded expenditure?

I 100% agree that Bush did a terrible job at not reducing spending. In fact, I think we line up pretty closely in our overall political views, even though it doesn't seem like it at first glance. But unfunded expenditures have zero chance of producing economic growth and that is definitely not the case with a tax break, spending reduction included or not.

[brvheart]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:41 PM, said:

yep just like the last time they were in charge! oops.Retaking the Senate would be almost impossible.....especially with independent Charlie Crist poised to win in Florida (woooo!).As for the 2nd part, you might want to figure out who you are going to run first in 2012......BG, some fields have experts I trust (like medicine or law). Economics is a giant guessing game as far as I can tell.

I was not a fan of Bush's fiscal policies, but things have changed, and I think the repubs might start acting like repubs now.

[strategy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:41 PM, said:

BG, some fields have experts I trust (like medicine or law). Economics is a giant guessing game as far as I can tell.

shake majored in it. tell that to him!

[strategy]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:46 PM, said:

I 100% agree that Bush did a terrible job at not reducing spending. In fact, I think we line of pretty close in our overall political views, even though it doesn't seem like it at first glance. But unfunded expenditures have zero chance of producing economic growth and that is definitely not the case with a tax break, spending reduction included or not.

as h has said repeatedly, unemployment benefits and other similar transfer payments are the least damaging of the various stimuli (that is probably not the right plural). I think it is completely absurd that the right is choosing this issue to make a stand, especially since it alienates so, so many voters and (again) so many economists, even right-leaning ones, think it is basically harmless.this was something dr. cowen said in the podcast. just fyi.

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:46 PM, said:

I was not a fan of Bush's fiscal policies, but things have changed, and I think the repubs might start acting like repubs now.

I am likely never voting republican again. I voted republican in '04 because the polling was held at a middle school and some teenage black kid standing outside said, "hey, you're voting kerry, right?" why didn't THAT voter harassment story make the news?

[CaneBrain]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:46 PM, said:

I was not a fan of Bush's fiscal policies, but things have changed, and I think the repubs might start acting like repubs now.

The only thing that has changed is they are out of power. Political parties do not change. Obama gets into the White House and he starts following the same playbook Clinton did in 1992. Republicans will get in and conveniently forget about X Y and Z. Remember, they talk a big game about immigration right now (as an example) but they did ZERO on it for 8 ****ing years except to throw a hissy fit when Bush offered a compromise bill which died a quick death. It is easy to talk big when you are out of power (Dems did a nice job of it while the country collapsed around Bush's head) much harder when you have to do stuff.To be fair, Obama actually accomplished quite a bit but going after health care first was, as I have said repeatedly, so ****ing dumb.

[brvheart]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:34 PM, said:

A lot of people with lots of background in economics have been spectacularly wrong for about a decade now. I think it's all a bunch of voodoo at this point.

I don't think it's voodoo, but it's a valid point that echoes what LLY was saying. There are smart people on both sides of every issue ever, but my point was that in an economics debate, I'm going to side every time with an expert in economics that I've listened to and trust vs. a dude on the forum with no economic background.It's totally different if someone posts something from an expert on the other side of whatever is being debated.For Strat: LLY, I'm not trying to rip on you.