"Don't you hope Obama succeeds?"

[clocker]

History also teaches us such that across-the-board tax cuts increase revenue and social benefit, while tax increases do just the opposite.

History teaches us no such thing.

[j2k4]

Nah.

Since those who're taking in this debate here need a tiny history lesson, I'll let Glenn Beck provide it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwZp_bhGAgA

Suffice it to say, if we had the time and inclination, we could throw up any numbers of statistics, graphs, charts or video testimony to support our arguments; I will settle for saying that if we picked up that particular gauntlet, by the end of a short time you would be running out of evidence while I would still be going strong.

We might do better to discuss how Obama's plans to raise the capital gains tax out of sight will depress revenue and, hence, the economy...very easy to understand.

[monkeyicious]

I'm a US Citizen.
Of course I want Obama to succeed.
I'd want any president to succeed.
It's in my best interest.
Do I think someone else had a better chance?
That's the real question to ask.

[j2k4]

I'm a US Citizen.
Of course I want Obama to succeed.
I'd want any president to succeed.
It's in my best interest.
Do I think someone else had a better chance?
That's the real question to ask.

A better chance to succeed?

Why do you think Obama will succeed?

He's not offering anything new - he's basically just an up-beat (HOPE!) Jimmy Carter.

[devilsadvocate]

If you had originally written you don't think it will succeed, instead of hoping it won't, I wouldn't be responding.

So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.

Err Sherlock- whole point of the reply was about the difference.

A very important semantic issue.

There is a huge difference in meaning.


example -

A child is going to have a very risky last chance operation that has had limited success in the past to remove what would be a fatal tumor from his brain.


1) I don't think it will work.

2) I hope it doesn't work.

See the difference?

To drive it home-

"Don't you hope the doctor succeeds?"

Don't you mean, "Do I hope the doctor proves the child can thrive with this operation?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.


I do note that you eventually wrote "I don't hope it doesn't work." but this is a complete 180 from your original statement.

I only have what you write to go by. If it just came out wrong and you didn't mean what you originally said or you have changed your mind I accept what you are saying now.

[j2k4]

So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.

Err Sherlock- whole point of the reply was about the difference.

A very important semantic issue.

There is a huge difference in meaning.


example -

A child is going to have a very risky last chance operation that has had limited success in the past to remove what would be a fatal tumor from his brain.


1) I don't think it will work.

2) I hope it doesn't work.

See the difference?

To drive it home-

"Don't you hope the doctor succeeds?"

Don't you mean, "Do I hope the doctor proves the child can thrive with this operation?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.


I do note that you eventually wrote "I don't hope it doesn't work." but this is a complete 180 from your original statement.

I only have what you write to go by. If it just came out wrong and you didn't mean what you originally said or you have changed your mind I accept what you are saying now.

So what you're saying is to mind my words so you don't have to.

Funny - under other circumstances I would remind you that it is the liberal camp which habitually defends flexo-bendy word meanings, but nevermind.

By the way-

If all your postage is to be of the following flavor-

Err Sherlock- whole point of the reply was about the difference.

A very important semantic issue.

There is a huge difference in meaning.

I would suggest you learn to speak as much or as often about the issue(s) at hand, rather than becoming preoccupied with tangential...chaff.

[clocker]

Nah.

Since those who're taking in this debate here need a tiny history lesson, I'll let Glenn Beck provide it:

I reject your assertion that Glen Beck is a suitable teacher of history and
I suspect that I could trade links with you till the cows come home, your claim of superior stamina be damned.

Of course you want Obama to fail...his success would throw your entire worldview into disarray.

[ilw]

Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.

if you weren't such a chicken-shit capitalist you wouldn't have a government managed police force.

I can't make any sense of that, Ian.

I used "police(d)" as a verb, not a noun.

i did also notice you used the passive to make it ambiguous as to who would be doing the 'proper policing'. So who will be policing capitalism? And who will be deciding what is proper?

[The Flying Cow]

rather than becoming preoccupied with tangential...chaff.

Quite the ventriloquist, Mr. Kevin.


Edit: I must stop using smilies.

They artificialise every post.

[j2k4]

Nah.

Since those who're taking in this debate here need a tiny history lesson, I'll let Glenn Beck provide it:

I reject your assertion that Glen Beck is a suitable teacher of history and
I suspect that I could trade links with you till the cows come home, your claim of superior stamina be damned.

Of course you want Obama to fail...his success would throw your entire worldview into disarray.

Beck was merely reciting history, not inventing it.

Much as I believe I harbor a carefully-crafted world-view, I would not mind being surprised into reconstructing it.

Can you say the same?

Having said all that, I suspect the folly of Obama's plans (such as they are) will be revealed in fairly short order; that is to say, with in the first year or so.

He will not serve a second term absent some sort of congressional/judicial amendment of relevant documents - this would certainly be required, as such things are no longer allowed as public options.