10/10 Well thought out response. Would read again.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Islamic Infiltrators?
- Thread starter scoober78
- Start date
10/10 Well thought out response. Would read again.
I honestly don't see this as any indication of Bachmann's un-intelligence. No need to agree with her. No need to approve of her tactics or strategy. But honestly...
Quote #1. All she was doing was repeating what some one else represented to her. I am not familiar with that statement but she has spoken about certain mandatory vaccines in the context of religious and personal liberty
Quote # 2. This is in regards to the EPA calling carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant. Will carbon dioxide kill ya, sure, in excessive qualities just like nitrogen and oxygen (in certain conditions) But it is hardly poisonous or inherently harmful. As to it's harmful effect on the environment, we know her position on that and it is becoming more debatable by the month. Losts of people even you would consider smart would agree with her on carbon dioxids effect on global warming.
Quote# 3. Theoretically true. A completely free labor market means there is a job for everyone at a price they would do the job at.
Sorry, I just feel that calling someone stupid for their positions and opinions indicates a lack of intellectual ammunition to do battle in the arena of ideas. I bet you are better than that.
Well, how's this for ammunition?
tox·ic (tksk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison.
2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous.
n.
A toxic chemical or other substance.
By the way, CO2 kills you by acidosis, the same mechanism as cyanide.
As for CO2's role in temperature rise, the United States is the only place in the world where a community of people believe that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations doesn't cause an increase in global temperature. The scientific community is also in consensus. What are we, the only people in the world smart enough to see the evidence? Has science been wrong before? Sure, but saying that its becoming "more debatable" by the month is, frankly, wrong. It isn't. The trend is in the opposite direction.
As for quote 3, as an economics major, I'll leave it at this: Both you and Congresswoman Bachmann need to take an economics class. An unrestricted labor market does not result in universal employment...at any wage level.
First, please go to the issue at hand. Do you believe Sen Bachmann, who earned a LLM from William and Mary, one of the best law schools in the country, and worked as an attorney for the IRS, is not intelligent based on the statements provided above? If so, I have a few quotes from Al Gore, President Obama, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden for you to review. I would expect you to find them imbeciles. Now if you want to claim its the quotes are not intellectually supportable, I'll burn some band width and parry just for fun.
Don't wish to debate global warming in this thread as it is beyond a thread jack even for me. Moreover, I know I won't change your mind. On your statements however, I'll challange you. Would please quote a Chemistry text book that defines Carbon Dioxide as inherently toxic or poisonous? Nearly every substance and element is harmful to humans if taken in extreme quantities or in unnatural conditions Oxygen is a good eexample. By your definition nitrogen, oxygen, helium, and hydrogen, nearly anything could be poisonous or toxic. That is why this designation was bad policy. It clearly was not science. CO2 was designated a harmful pollutant for the purposes of global warming regulations and it took the help of a sympathetic Federal judge to get to that point. Because it was solely in the realm of global warming it became political.
America is not the only country where you find global warming skeptics. It is where the greatest number are and the most vocal. That is because we are a big country with a large media. Our press is also among the most free and investigative. Our citizens are some of the most distrustful of authority, especially the government. That is a good thing. Because Europe, or South America do something does not make it worthy of emulation by the US. Thousands of scientists publicly do not agree with the predominate gobal warming theory. Thousands more must hold the same opinion but don't vocalize it. If your final comment regarding my statement that doubt is building by the month simply refers to the current surface temps we have seen in the US over the summer, well then... I am shocked.
On the unemployment comment, remember I said theoretically and the Senator said "virtually". I also never said "universal". If you have a degree in economics then you must also know that there is some debate on this subject. It appears in every basic econ text. So your absolutist comment is without authority. You just chose what you want to believe. I, and I suspect Sen. Bachmann, chose to believe the theory that is most supported by reality, and that is minminimum wage increases almost always result in higher unemployment in the low wage unskilled sectors. And that is where futrure higher wage workers get groomed, trained, and promote from. If there is no minimum wage workers, who provide their labor in a market place, and employers, who "consume" labor, will make continuous adjustments the labor supplied to the market according to price paid for the labor (wage) until the quantity of labor demanded is equal to the labor supplied. It is simply the same supply and demand curves I hope you learned in 4 years of economics. Minimum wage laws act like price controls. Those old enough remember what gas price controls did in the 70s and New Yorkers know what price controls have done to housing. All that said, there will always be some small number of people uneunemployed. They move from job to job with in the labor market and some decide that they want to remove themselves from the market. There are also some sectors where wage increases are very easily transfered on to the consumer. But by and large, I subsubscribe the theory stated above, as do a very large (majority, I think) number of economists. You can chose to believe the alternative theories on this if you wish. To say anyone that holds my view, Sen. Bachmann's, Thomas Sowell's and numerous text book authors lacks intelligence is outrageous. I am willing to accept that there is one other theory regarding minimum wage that smart people have advanced. I have looked at both and reject the other theory. I don't think the people that embrace that theory are stupid, unscholorly or politically partisan. They just have to work harder to convince me they are right. That would be the same for global warming theory and the proposition that Sen. Bachmann lacks intelligence, except most folks that call Sen Bachmann un-intelligent are partisan.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Just FYI, Michelle Bachman is a Congresswoman, not a Senator.
Ok...I'll try to keep my response short since NONE of what we are talking about is really what the thread is about.
No, I don't believe Congresswoman Bachmann is stupid. However, I do think that as a politician, she puts her first priority on the implications of the position she is taking, whether or not they make sense to her intellect. Politicians say things to continue being politicians, not necessarily because they are true, intelligent, or otherwise useful. Every one of the Bachmann quotes we've talked about is a position that she has calculated will curry her favor with a demographic that will get her elected. I don't think she's stupid but I think that she, even more than most politicians, cares less about what is true/right/"intelligent" than what is politically expedient.
CO2? Not a lot of chemistry texts available online...however...
http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
This really isn't the point though. I agree with you that the designation of CO2 by the EPA was a political, not scientific act, designed to allow increased regulation of its emission.
As to CO2's role in global warming...I did overstate the point that the US was "the only place in the world..." where climate change was significantly doubted. I apologize. I was hungover.
We aren't here to debate climate change...Finally, as to the economic point...yes, I am aware that you said "theoretically". However, you said this:
And it is not true. A completely free labor market does not mean there is a job for everyone. That it's theoretical is a given since there has never been a macro-scale "free" market. If you don't believe this, try Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith or The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by JM Keynes or Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.
There is healthy debate as to whether the minimum wage increases or decreases unemployment in our economy...I tend to think it does increase it slightly...but your statement was, and is, patently false.
Ok...NONE of what we are talking about is really what the thread is about....I was hungover.
Typical AW post.
The money transfers and overseas accounts were likely part of the fraud and thus wrapped up with that. Multiple passports and unauthorized travel would likely be part of a counterintelligence investigation and those are classified.
As for being an 'ICE intelligence supervisor' at the El Paso office, probably nowhere near as impressive as it sounds.
Something I considered, however the amount of money we are talking about far exceeds the scope of the fraud, as reported anyway. Yes, thought about the counterintelligence angle regarding the passports too, but like you said, his position isn't likely as impressive as it sounds. Doesn't that imply he wouldn't be personally involved in a counter espionage mission to the middle east? I do hope you are right.
Shorter than my response for sure. You are a better man than I. In any case, this proves you were having more fun then.
I apologize. I was hungover.
True enough, a completely free labor market is theoretical. And as you said, we haven't seen one. That is why the research and models are in fact theoretical. Doesn't mean they don't have value. Be that as it may, if it was taken that I meant zero unemployment I agree that isn't possible in the real world no mater how free the labor market. When I took economics I was taught that "full" employment was about 5% unemployment. Couldn't get lower. In the 90's into the mid 2000's we saw unemployment much lower sending economists back to work on their employment models. Who is to say that some day under the right circumstances we won't see unemployment below the levels we saw 20 years ago? Clearly the economists of my day were wrong. Couldn't they be again? Or is the "dismal" science settled on this too?
The multiple passports/citizenships is a rule with clearances, no crime against being a dual citizen in the US. The money? Good question but fraud can be profitable.
As for his being stationed in the mid-east as an ICE person, they likely put him over there doing visa/passport stuff for applicants since he knew the language and the land. His involvement in 'real' intelligence work would likely have been very limited.
I don't believe he was stationed in Jordan or the middle east. There was no mention of being a dual citizen in any news article I read. And although not a crime, how can it permissible to hold dual citizenship and have a TS or higher clearance. I don't dismiss your analysis. But where is the official investigation/dismissal of the appearance of malfeasance? After Ft Hood are they still gun shy about investigating Muslims? That is my point.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
If I pulled a dual citizen move (I'm eligible in 2 other countries) I'm sure my ass would get investigated, and I'm just a IRR Bum.
Jums ir spiegs!