<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM, spike <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net" target="_blank">spike66@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
>… I have never observed more irresponsible behavior by a American politician than what I observed from the Tea Party Republicans on Wednesday night…<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<br></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"> Indeed? The persistent deficit spending for the past 14 years doesn’t qualify?<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No that doesn't qualify and doesn't even come close to the level of irresponsibility and just raw stupidity that I observed on Wednesday; only one congressional vote in the last 14 years, or in my lifetime for that matter, threatened to destroy the economic world in the next 90 minutes. And in general deficit spending is not a bad thing, certainly from 2008 to today it has not been. As for before 2008, well, I remind you that those same hillbillies that you like so much that voted not to raise the debt ceiling also voted to buy not one but TWO wars, AND they also voted NOT to raise taxes to pay for them, AND now when the bill comes due to pay for all that stuff that they insisted of buying they are (in the name of fiscal responsibility of course) refusing to pay the bill. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
>> if you're in congress you vote to spend less money…<br></blockquote><br> > They are trying. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They are very trying. <br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
> That’s what sequestration is all about.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not talking about sequestration, I'm talking about debt default, the failure to keep your word, hypocrisy, the destruction of the dollar, and economic catastrophe. <br>
</div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div>> The whole argument devolves into a logic loop. Senator Fester N. Boyle disagrees with me on economics, therefore he is an idiot</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If I know nothing about Senator Fester N. Boyle except that he voted not to extend the debt limit last Wednesday then I can say without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion that Senator Fester N. Boyle is a monumental idiot.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div> >therefore he must be a creationist, </div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's not a sure thing but if he voted to default on Wednesday I would be willing to bet you 4 to 1 that Senator Boyle is a creationist, and probably a militant one. <br>
<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
>> if you don't think logic is important in one subject, like biology, then you probably don't think logic is important in another subject, like economics <br></blockquote></blockquote></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div><br>> This assumes logic applies to areas where the politician has exactly zero knowledge or interest. <br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>
<br></div><div>Like economics. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div>
<div><div><div>> Regarding economics, this theory fails to explain why there are two major schools of thought competing currently, Hayek and Keynes. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No school of economics said that not raising the debt ceiling on Wednesday and turning the government of the USA into a deadbeat was a good idea, although plenty of hillbillies thought so.<br>
</div><div> <br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
>> If Obama gives in to terrorist demands…<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
> Terrorist demands. The will of the house of representatives on a tax, which is their legal responsibility, is a terrorist demand now? </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. The hillbilly wing of the once proud Republican party has decided to use terror as a weapon, they sent millions of people, including me, into a panic when they threatened to destroy the economy of the world in 90 minutes if their demands were not met. If that isn't terrorism I don't know what is.<br>
</div></div><div><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
>> and they are seen to be successful then he knows that the exact same tactics will be used against him and future presidents again and again and again<br></blockquote><br>> Ah yes I did overlook that. The current president is worried about future presidents losing power. OK. This really is about power, that much I will agree. I disagree that presidents should have much power, but I agree this really is about power.<br>
</blockquote><br></div><div>Politics is always about power, but next time we could have a conservative president and 50% of the house or 40% of the Senate threatening to destroy the world in 90 minutes if their socialist demands are not met. Would you be happy then? <br>
<br></div><div> John K Clark<br></div><div><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></div></div></div></div>