I think that's it. Someone should dig up some of those classic old threads.

I'm more interested in hearing why you're surprised that Al Sharpton's radio show hasn't been cancelled yet.

I hadn't heard about his show for years, which is meaningless, but many liberal political talk shows fail. His might have survived this long because it's doubtful anyone's pouring a significant amount of money into it that might expect a return and comedy factor. Presumably he doesn't use a teleprompter on his radio show but who can forget this classic:

This is probably because most liberal-minded individuals don't need to supplement their non-editorial news consumption with the kind of alternate reality provided by Fox News, Limbaugh, et al. Conservatives need constant reinforcement in order to prevent the influence of facts / truth / etc. from seeping into their brains.

What is it with conservatives' obsession with teleprompters?

It always reminds me of the SNL Celebrity Jeopardy sketch where Sean Connery points out that Trebek wouldn't have known the answer if he didn't have his cards.

"This guy reads from a card!"

Okay, guys. Point made. Clearly everything they're saying is invalid.

My point was only that he probably wouldn't mangle the language in the same sort of way on the radio because he most likely isn't reading a prompter.

So you're saying he's probably better on the radio than on TV? That doesn't really support the idea that his radio show should be cancelled.

Man, you must be bored.

:golfclap:

Why? Because I expect people to express rational thoughts if they want to be a part of a conversation?

They're afraid of literacy.

Or I mean, whatever. I guess you could posit that his radio show is bad for different reasons, and still deserves to be cancelled, but that leaves us with the realization that you posted a video with a tenuous connection to the discussion because it makes a guy you don't like look bad.

You're like that guy who shares a link to some absurd made up westernjournalism.com article on Facebook, and then when people say it's made up you tell them you don't care because "this kind of stuff probably does happen" and move along having learned nothing.

Because let's not lose sight of the fact that you forwarded a stance that his radio show should be cancelled, and then backed it up with some hand waving about how liberal radio shows get cancelled more.

So yeah, Wookie, please tell me why you find it hard to believe that a man who has been a leader and role model to a chronically disadvantaged subset of American society for about the last four decades has a radio show that just somehow is popular enough to avoid cancellation.

No, he's being a Master of the Obvious by pointing out that often scripted is more pleasing to the ear than impromptu. In other words, as the conspiracy goes, Al Sharpton, as well as Barack Obama, only sound intelligent (aka white) with the use of a teleprompter, & if you take it away from them, you end up with the vocabulary of Lil' Wayne (black). This is why pointing out that everyone on television uses a teleprompter doesn't work--because it only applies to "liberal" minorities. You see, if you take away Obama's teleprompter, he sounds just as stupid as George Bush. In Obama's case, he may even have to substitute a bit of English with his native Swahili, should the electricity go out.

Apologies for posting racist bull**** and even suggesting it may have legitimacy. It doesn't and trying to be edgy to get attention is not acceptable.

Well, this really isn't the first time you've posted a bunch of stupid bull**** and then backpedaled like crazy, claiming you were just seeking attention.

Wow, when did the facetious arguments become genuine ones or have they since they still seem to be filled with sarcasm? And since literacy was brought up, when did I write anything about his radio show deserving to be cancelled? I just thought it would be interesting to hear how Al Sharpton would respond to Reid's arguments and when I checked to see if he still had a radio show I was surprised to find it still airs.

Bahahaha! Nothing has changed here at all!
Here I thought that when I clicked on the thread about national and personal debt, I was going to post about how excited I was that my family was fixing to embark on an adventure to eliminate all of our debt, only to find political squabbling.
Just like the good ole days.

Oh, so you're pleasantly surprised?

I mean, it either does or doesn't deserve cancellation in your eyes.

Only being able to interpret sentences in the most literal context must be exhausting.

I wanted to talk about debt.

So Jon, how do you feel about the fact that our monetary system necessarily requires there to be more debt than money in the money supply? Is this something that you would change?

Congratulations! I finally got serious this year as well. Things lined up real good for us to jump start the process in January. Not including our house, I will be done by the end of next year and potentially much sooner. Good luck man! I'll send you a PM later.

So you're saying that you're tired not bored? Certainly nothing in my post suggested an opinion of his show's merits and I would be ill equipped to offer an opinion on whether or not a show I haven't heard in years and didn't know still aired until yesterday should be canceled.

I still think you're bored. I can't imagine you actually care any more than I about this. But, please, feel entitled to have the last word on this vital issue.

No man, I'm just plainly ****ing with you at this point.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbxYoa1WLrk

fractional reserve is small potatoes compared to the literal state sponsored terrorism of deposit insurance plus a low reserve requirement. Not to mention that the federal bonds market is deliberately cornered, or overnight loans which are exclusively available to a hand picked elite.

When FIs are the ones assuming the risks of FR they are going to be careful as heck because it is so easy to kill yourself doing it. It's quite a different story when the taxpayers are the ones on the hook. Obvious moral hazard is obvious.

Bank runs are bad. Instead of regulating away the risks of bank runs, let's regulate away the consequences! Durr hurr hurr I am a politician, my law degree means I smart about all thing.

You are dramatically overestimating the qualifications of the average American politician.

From: By the Numbers: How well do you know the 114th Congress?

• 20 members of the House have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma;
• 8 members of the House have associate’s degrees as their highest degrees.
• 82 members of the House and 16 Senators earned a master’s degree as their highest attained degrees.
• 159 members of the House (36 percent of the House) and 54 Senators (54 percent of the Senate) hold law degrees.
• 22 members of the House and 3 Senators have medical degrees.

Sigh. My point is that virtually no one touts "I have a law degree" as a statement of qualification to become an American politician.

Your primary qualifications are as follows. You must: Love only god more than you love guns, fear the homos, act like in ~200 years we magically figured out all of the solutions to issues that humankind has faced for a few thousand years, violently object to the solutions that other countries have pragmatically found to problems that only America still exhibits (as far as developed countries go), and just generally carry an air of opposition to effectively accomplishing absolutely anything that benefits the vast majority of the nation's citizens.

This coincides perfectly with the American political system, as you can rely on the people who love god and guns as much as you do to hold up their half of the bargain wrt your reelection, while the lobbyists who write policy for you fund the ads you'll use to make sure those same jackasses elect you after you run an ad during every commercial break on the local tv stations explaining that your opponent supports gay marriage, and "if you don't want to be forced to get a gay marriage or some bull****, you should vote for me. Also they want to take your guns and religion. Seriously, they do, despite the fact that no one has ever tried to. They will if you elect them."

This system works wonderfully because you play to the bigotry and fear of those people to get them to ignore the fact that your party hasn't done anything that actually benefits them in their ****ing lifetime. After you get those people to agree with you because you hold beliefs that global society at large disagrees with, and since any crazy and/or ignorant person craves validation, they're more likely to agree with you when you tell them that the tax breaks you give to the rich will benefit the poor and middle class, because if there's one thing the rich exhibit, it's their contempt for the idea accumulating the most wealth possible. It's just around the corner, guys. This stuff would all be benefiting you if it weren't for those damned liberals. They're the reason the rich people can't make so much money that they literally don't know what to do with it, so by order of elimination they'll eventually stop being greedy sociopaths and start letting go of it by way of giving raises to the workforce and lowering the prices of goods. Because everyone knows that one of the key tenants to becoming a wealthy businessman is to increase production cost and lower the price of goods and services. There's absolutely no chance that their profit margin will be the only thing that increases.

Really, guys. Helping the rich helps the poor. All big businessmen agree, like Donald Trump. Well, except for Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, because they're in the Illuminati that wants to take your guns, ban your religion, and make you start sucking cock.

That's all the qualification you need to be an American politician. The problem isn't that they're lawyers. It's not that they think they're smart because of their law degree. It's that they know they're smarter than the people who elect them, which really isn't a very high bar.

Oh, and if you'd like additional support for the notion that no one uses their law degree as a qualification to get elected, you need only look to the fact that it's repeatedly stated that Barack Obama doesn't know jack **** about the US Constitution despite having been a constitutional law professor at the fourth most prestigious law school in the United States.

It's a special kind of lazy when the laws and government of a country are considered perfect and immutable by the people whose sole job is to change them. Oh I didn't do my job, but that's just because it didn't need to be done. That'll be $180k.

California has the biggest economy, the highest state income tax in America, and the world's largest third world theme park. Just get on the interstate and drive 45 minutes away from San Francisco.

I thought you wanted to talk about debt.

Aren't I?

It's the white trash conservative way: budget a country like it's a household, budget a household like it's a country. Put a 60" TV on your credit card and that's okay, but the state wants to re-pave a major truck lane? Nope, can't do it, we're outta money.

The real problem with debt is that most people are too stupid to know what to do with it. Loans for non-productive purposes are by definition usurious; the only acceptable loan is one to be used for conducting profitable business.

What's remarkable about the conservative viewpoint is how goddamn hypocritical it is. On one hand, stand there and say that the government should stay out of people's lives, which means we need to disband government agencies that prevent businesses from doing the kind of things that caused government agencies to be created. On the other hand, attempt to create a constitutional amendment saying that we can ban certain people from getting married if our religion says it's yucky. Also, let's start drug testing welfare applicants so we don't spend as much money. The people who use drugs don't deserve our help, and spending on social programs is just OUT OF CONTROL! Nevermind the fact that you don't save even remotely as much money by denying drug users as you spend on identifying them. Gubment should stay out of people's personal business, though, and don't waste money...

Which brings us to the part where you stand there and talk about how you are so totally against government spending, but spend boatloads of money on defense because you love the troops so much. By all means, don't do anything to help them once they're not in a uniform anymore, or for that matter, once they get home from deployment. You just make sure they have shiny new toys to use when they go back a year from now. This is because conservatives don't love the troops. They love Raytheon and Lockheed, because they pay for reelection campaigns.

This is all because conservatives don't actually believe in any of the things they claim to. They're against government spending, but only sometimes. They're against the government interfering with their lives, but they don't care if it interferes with anyone else.

"I can't ****ing believe Obama has the nerve to tell people they have to have health insurance... Let's force some women to get ultrasounds and allow their employers to refuse to pay for their contraceptives! That'll show them damned liberals!"

Yeah, instead of creating programs to stop teens from getting pregnant, let's just make sure they won't have any support if they do. That's the same thing, right?

Man, I am the best Christian ever.