Leesburg, VA has banned the American Library Association’s number one banned book for 2006. That’s right, the story of a gay family of penquins in the Central Park Zoo in NYC. So we got to have a damn constitutional amendment to stop gay penquins from destroying our way of life? If two damn penquins can destroy our entire way of life, I say we deserve to be destroyed. I know, let’s just have those two penquins destroy Leesburg.I really wish people would stop listening to the histrionics of televangelists who continually misinterpret the OT. If anyone really wants to understand the OT, then go ask a Rabbi, not a Southern Baptist.Come on, when God told the Hebrew tribes they had to marry women, well that was back in the Bronze Age. I mean, most men wanted to marry their camels. Young men were constantly bringing to the tent some cute hump and saying: “Mom, she has your eyes, doesn’t she?” So they really needed a religious tenet to tell them to reproduce with women and not the livestock. Even though the livestock were more plentiful and a hell of a lot easier to get into bed, if you know what I mean. Today, we don’t have exactly that much livestock around anymore in our urban world so I doubt that all of us still need to have a religious tenet to tell us to marry women. But when I look at our current leadership in Washington, I am not so certain that just maybe the GOP, Southern Baptists, and most of those in the Bible Belt just might need a constitutional amendment, in addition to a religious tenet, telling them they can only wed women. I mean do they really look smart enough to figure that out on their own? Really?Peter Nuhn
Comment from: mxracer652 [Member]
Ren & tom,
phred’s right on the economics. Car rental supply = stagnant, so on the weekends, when demand goes up, price follows. Basic stuff.
First: this wasn’t phreakshow – it was a quote from the web site that he linked to that supplied his flawed grocery deficit analogy.
The statement here is that price decreases when demand goes up. Which flies in the face of that basic theory you are referring to.
His copy & past of the grocery analogy is 100% correct. People often confuse trade deficits with budget deficits.
And it appears to some of us here that phreakshow is doing just that. Possibly deliberately in order to confuse the issue. I believe that the discussion was about budget deficits, not trade deficits – and for someone to introduce that element into the debate suggests either ignorance of the debate topic, or deliberate malicious intent to confuse the debate.
Comment from: alatham [Member]
Tom, that was brilliant.
I can see the dancing priests / minstrels dancing in my head.
Thanks! For some strange reason, someone whining about how no one responds to their questions while simultaneously refusing to answer any themselves led to this adaptation.
erchambers,
Yes, I was refering to the National D3bt. Deficit was the wrong choice of words, but it was the one used initially, and without thinking, I continued to use it. Of course, it is our annual budget deficits that have brought us to our current total d3bt. So in that sense, the two are, like, totally related. Totally. Fer sure!
erchambers,
Well, we know what the 4.5 trillion and 9 trillion are referring to, right? Are you suggesting that those figures could be confused, by a knowledgeable person, with the figures that represent trade with other nations? I wasn’t the least bit confused about what Ren was referring to, I think the meaning was obvious.
So, I wasn’t very explicit regarding what part of your comment you might want do reconsider. Maybe you could have used better wording here?
As that was your first sentence and paragraph I assumed the rest of the comment might be expanding on that. Was I wrong? Knowing now the context of how the subject of deficit was started, who would “purposeful disconnect” refer to?
On the grocery thingy, I would have you try to make consistent sense out of the comments made by that particular christian idiot, over time. As I have decided (over time) not to read them. The problem you see is probably a combination of intent and lack of knowledge by phreedm but, it is not new or specific to what is happening in this particular thread. Go ahead try having a few intelligent discussions with the troll.
tom,
Then we’ve got typos galore or some misunderstanding, because I read:
There’s also the business side of this mix, which is inflexibility. Recreational users can & do wait out high prices, where business travelers have no choice. That is one instance where less demand = higher price. I’m a few years removed from an econ minor, but this is still basic stuff.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding things…
the first quote was:
Car rental companies and hotels often charge cheaper rates on weekends.
which is (unless I’m reading something incorrectly) from the web site of one Walter E. Williams, who was used to supply the grocery deficits example.
Then I said:
I used to work for a major car rental company, and the rates most definitely went up from Friday – Sunday due to the higher demand.
as a personally observed example of the rate increases that come into play on the weekends, and that directly contradict the theory from the first quote.
mxracer652,
You are the one with the econonomics education, not me, so I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to understand what you are saying.
If car rental companies and hotels charge a premium during the week because of the inflexibility of business travelers, and then those same companies increase their rates on the week-ends because of higher demand… what exactly is it that recreational users wait out in order to get cheaper rates?
It may be basic stuff for you educated folks, but for us laymen, it is confusing at best. If possible, without writing a thesis on the subject, could you spell it out for me a little better? I don’t mean to sound like an ass. I honestly do not understand. Thank you in advance.
Oh yeah – I almost forgot: we gave discounts to businesses for their week long rentals. Because they were giving us regular business, less of a risk to stiff us on paying for wrekcing vehicles / tickets / etc. And if we didn’t give them the best rate, they could always go to the competition. The constance of the business demand for car rentals was a factor in their getiing reduced rates – not a reason to raise them.
(: tom
,
Although I am not stupid, I fully admit my ignorance of things like economic theory. Now, having said that, without an explanation from MX to the contrary that I can understand, I am with you all the way. It seems pretty simple. Maybe we are both missing something?
Ren…this book is great for getting a basic understanding of economics…
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609/ref=sr_1_20/002-8910470-8973600?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174673774&sr=1-20
Tom… How can someone who comes across as such an elitist miss so much…?
Comment from: (: tom
[Member]
It’s called sarcasm…try rereading it
Who said it was ok? You? I don’t believe the Feds should be in the education business…it’s unconstitutional…
Ah…tax breaks equals wealth redistribution? I think you better understand what Socia1ism is all about…
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html
Why do you say that you are concerned that Obama/Clinton will redistribute wealth through government intervention
Apparently because I actually listen to what they say…do you?
Clinton wants to “take” the oil profits…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g
Obama wants to take .07% of GDP and give it to the world…
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas_plans_for_global_wealth_redistribution/
Hmmm…I agree…sort of. Bush is no conservative Republican…you’ll get no argument from me…
More then the Dems? Hardly…FDR? LBJ?
phreedy broadcasts his ignorance for all to read…
Sad…
because Phreeky clearly doesn’t.
Comment from: phreedm [Member]
I said: I have some questions: why is it okay to engage in government welfare for abstinence-only programs
and phreakshow said:
Who said it was ok? You? I don’t believe the Feds should be in the education business…it’s unconstitutional…
Maybe you should talk to your christian friends who are busy wasting taxpayer money and getting rich with this nonsense. Or the Republican’ts you support for voting it in. Why do you disingenuously turn a Republican’t program into a cudgel to attack Democratic politician with? Why is this sort of fundamental dishonesty considered acceptable behavior for a christian?
Nice cherry picking of the plethora of questions asked of you. Is that sort of behavior the preferred method of christian debate?
Tom
Has it ever not been so? Lying is the stock and trade of theists.
It’s all we ever see of Phreedm. It’s ironic that out of all the people here, he does the most damage to the name of Christianity.