Pages

 

Recent Pages by mikiesmoky2:
OCCUPY: Here is the key to bring down the political 'House of Cards' 85% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans are WRONG!! Analysis of President Obama's American Jobs Plan My Initial Responses to President Obama's Jobs Bill Is Herman Cain a liar or has he been misled regarding his 9-9-9 concept?

Jump to bottom

16 comments

1 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 17, 2011 4:53:01pm

I actually agree with you.

But why do you write in this incredibly bizarre manner?

2 mikiesmoky2  Jul 17, 2011 5:39:08pm

re: #1 Obdicut

I actually agree with you.

But why do you write in this incredibly bizarre manner?

Bizarre?
LOL
I attempt to be as simple, definitive, and as objective as possible and to not reflect bias.

Your agreeing should bring a smile to rightwingconspirator…., and has caused me to chuckle.

Thankx for your comment, but I will, much more, appreciate responses, which disagree with me if the disagreement offers accompanying rationale for the disagreement.

mz

3 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 17, 2011 5:46:26pm

re: #2 mikiesmoky2

Yes. Bizarre. You write in a bizarre way, which is trivially observable. It makes you seem kind of crazy. For example, your 5 probable results, for some reason, only considers three economics aspects. It’s completely arbitrary.

4 goddamnedfrank  Jul 17, 2011 9:22:50pm
If the demand wherewithal tax rates and energy tax base is are increased, the economics income of that venue generated should be increased.

Edited for readability. Dressing up a duh statement in non-standard language doesn’t make it any more profound. Also, your probable results make predictions on employment that aren’t obviously tied to your operating statement. In other words, you need to define your terms, “energy” for instance is incredibly nebulous in this context.

5 mikiesmoky2  Jul 17, 2011 10:02:02pm

re: #3 Obdicut

Yes. Bizarre. You write in a bizarre way, which is trivially observable. It makes you seem kind of crazy. For example, your 5 probable results, for some reason, only considers three economics aspects. It’s completely arbitrary.

Your first 3 sentences are best described as negative and not offering any benefits regarding the subject matter of the writing. If it made you happy, that’s great….., and kind of sad.

Your 4th and final sentence doesn’t say much, but it offers the shadow of something you are attempting to state.
Please be specific with your displeasure and confusion.

I don’t understand your 3 and 5.

I presented 5 scenarios and the 5 probable results of those “5” scenarios.

You can argue the scenarios or you can argue the “probable” results.

If I have confused you, I apologize.

Interesting, since your initial response was that you agreed with me.

Apparently, you just couldn’t tolerate agreeing with me. lol

mz

6 mikiesmoky2  Jul 17, 2011 11:09:58pm

re: #4 goddamnedfrank

Edited for readability. Dressing up a duh statement in non-standard language doesn’t make it any more profound. Also, your probable results make predictions on employment that aren’t obviously tied to your operating statement. In other words, you need to define your terms, “energy” for instance is incredibly nebulous in this context.


I offered:The economics of a given venue depends upon the demand wherewithal and energy of that venue.

If the demand wherewithal and energy is increased, the economics of that venue should be increased.

Your convolution of the 2nd sentence is absolutely amazing. What were you drinking?
1982 Lafite? 1997 Screaming Eagle? lol

X = the demand wherewithal and energy of that venue
X + Y (the increase) = The resulting energy, which is Y units greater than X
Thus, since there is increased demand energy, the (potential) economics should be increased

What was that “descriptor”…., duh?

Whew!!!!!

mz

7 Political Atheist  Jul 18, 2011 11:25:03am

re: #3 Obdicut

Yes. Bizarre. You write in a bizarre way, which is trivially observable. It makes you seem kind of crazy. For example, your 5 probable results, for some reason, only considers three economics aspects. It’s completely arbitrary.

And leaves out an important option-Leave the middle class tax charts alone. Raise taxes on those top 2%ers. Raise corporate taxes a bit, or close loopholes.

8 Political Atheist  Jul 18, 2011 11:27:19am

I would suggest the following title would have worked out better for you.

Oxymoron Conflict: Raising taxes and lowering taxes is bad economics, yet raising taxes and lowering taxes is good economics.

All caps just looks nutty, and I know that is not your intent. It annoys our kind host as well, who provides the forum at no cost to us.

9 mikiesmoky2  Jul 18, 2011 1:12:43pm

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

And leaves out an important option-Leave the middle class tax charts alone. Raise taxes on those top 2%ers. Raise corporate taxes a bit, or close loopholes.

Remember, I attempt to keep as simple as possible.
Did you have any problem with any of the 5 scenarios or the projected probable results?

You offer another situation, but you stop at the head of the stretch, i.e., you don’t finish.
You didn’t offer a projected most probable result.

Did you understand the purpose of the original piece?

You offered: Raise taxes on those top 2%ers. Raise corporate taxes a bit

There should be a negligible effect upon demand, a negligible effect upon employment, and should have a positive effect upon the deficit.
Your scenario would affect the stock market in two ways; net earnings would be lower, but confidence in our budget situation would be improved, thus there should be a slight negative effect upon stock pricing.

If that projection is probable, do you believe that scenario to be superior to #5?

mz

10 mikiesmoky2  Jul 18, 2011 1:30:49pm

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

I would suggest the following title would have worked out better for you.

Oxymoron Conflict: Raising taxes and lowering taxes is bad economics, yet raising taxes and lowering taxes is good economics.

All caps just looks nutty, and I know that is not your intent. It annoys our kind host as well, who provides the forum at no cost to us.

WOW (notice all caps!)!

You read like an attorney, i.e., form over substance.
Well…., that’s where we part company, since I believe in substance.

By the way, the headline was not all in caps, just the 2 words, OXYMORON CONFLICT.

My bad if that’s what freaked out the brilliant minds on this site.

And yes, Charles has built this site, which should be great for healthy and substantial discussions of various subjects.

Unfortunately, I have not experienced much of this notable goal of “healthy and substantial discussion”.

Try wearing goggles and going to the whip and you might find the finish line.


mz

11 Political Atheist  Jul 18, 2011 2:42:20pm

re: #9 mikiesmoky2

Did you have any problem with any of the 5 scenarios or the projected probable results?

#2 might overstate the advantage of increased employment, due to likely government layoffs, but the rest looks reasonably accurate

You didn’t offer a projected most probable result.

Sorry, I thought that was self evident. I would expect a positive result in revenues and consumer confidence, a long term positive effect on employment.

Did you understand the purpose of the original piece?
Most likely yes.

MS2-Other options outside your limited scenario may be much preferred.

12 Political Atheist  Jul 18, 2011 3:03:00pm

re: #10 mikiesmoky2

WOW (notice all caps!)!

By the way, the headline was not all in caps, just the 2 words, OXYMORON CONFLICT.

Er, that’s all I suggested you change, leaving it quite evident I was aware of exactly how you composed the headline.

My bad if that’s what freaked out the brilliant minds on this site.

It’s no freakout, it’s just regarded as rude.

I’ll just fix this for you. Take it as an appropriately restrained reply to a negative attitude on your part.
And yes, Charles has built this site, which should be great for healthy and substantial discussions of various subjects.

Unfortunately, I have not experienced much of this notable goal of “healthy and substantial discussion”.

Try wearing goggles and going to the whip and you might find the finish line.

mz

Try remembering this site vastly ups the number of people that read your published opinions. Even when Charles disagrees with you.

13 mikiesmoky2  Jul 18, 2011 4:08:09pm

re: #11 Rightwingconspirator

REGARDING: #2 might overstate the advantage of increased employment, due to likely government layoffs, but the rest looks reasonably accurate
RESPONSE: You are assuming there would be government layoffs.
If the government, whether it be municipal, state, or federal, needs to cuts expenses by 8%, reducing salaries would be preferable to “layoffs”.
More importantly, I have no idea why you even mention #2, unless you believe it to be superior to #5.
What is the purpose of your comment?

You are not assisting the purpose of the writing, i.e., to review options and select the best option.

REGARDING: (You didn’t offer a projected most probable result.)
Sorry, I thought that was self evident. I would expect a positive result in revenues and consumer confidence, a long term positive effect on employment.
RESPONSE: Do you believe that your offering would offer superior results than #5?

REGARDING: Other options outside your limited scenario may be much preferred.
RESPONSE: Please offer anything which you believe to be superior to #5.
That’s the bottom-line effort of this piece.

Did you understand the purpose of the original piece?


mz

14 mikiesmoky2  Jul 18, 2011 4:17:39pm

re: #12 Rightwingconspirator

REGARDING: Try remembering this site vastly ups the number of people that read your published opinions.
RESPONSE: I would, sincerely, appreciate reading responses from those people if they were to offer incremental benefits to the discussion.
That’s what should be the purpose of this exercise.

REGARDING: Even when Charles disagrees with you.
RESPONSE: Charles must be so busy, he does not have the time to partake.
I would enjoy and appreciate reading his responses to my offerings.

mz

15 Political Atheist  Jul 19, 2011 1:29:21pm

re: #14 mikiesmoky2

REGARDING: Try remembering this site vastly ups the number of people that read your published opinions.
RESPONSE: I would, sincerely, appreciate reading responses from those people if they were to offer incremental benefits to the discussion.
That’s what should be the purpose of this exercise.

REGARDING: Even when Charles disagrees with you.
RESPONSE: Charles must be so busy, he does not have the time to partake.
I would enjoy and appreciate reading his responses to my offerings.

mz

Careful what you wish for my friend. Srsly.

16 mikiesmoky2  Jul 19, 2011 2:32:01pm

re: #15 Rightwingconspirator

Careful what you wish for my friend. Srsly.

If you want to use the concept of “seriousness”, you might think about discussing, meaningfully, the topic I have presented.
This topic is critical to everyone, whether one is aware of that “fact” or not, i.e., perception will not alter reality.

I am not “wishing” for anything.
I cannot control anyone or his or her thinking.
All I can do is offer a topic for discussion in an attempt to resolve or mitigate a problem.

By the way, the presentation of your remark feels like some type of “threat”.
What’s that all about?
What does that rhetoric accomplish?
It doesn’t appear to be a stellar effort.

mz


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 73 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 171 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1