Liberals Love/Hate relationship with Americans - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Liberals Love/Hate relationship with Americans

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Transmogrifier » Fri May 21, 2004 10:59 am

Madison wrote:Trans, why is the tobacco lawsuit legit? Doesn't McDonalds target kids too? So if a kid gets fat (eating McDonalds), grows up fat (eating McDonalds), and dies due to a fat related illness, would the family have the right to sue McDonalds because they target kids in the ads? They even give away toys trying to entice the children to convince mommy and daddy to take them there.


Mad, I see the difference as one of addiciton. Tobacco companies targeted kids to get them addicted. They even made it clear that they were doing this to replace the users that are dying because of their product.

As far as I know, there are no drugs in burgers.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri May 21, 2004 11:04 am

Economic lesson:

Reagans "trickle down economics" never happened. Ive actually done personal research on this topic by studying the economic environment during 1980-1984 and 1984-1988. One rule of thumb to remember when discussing our economy - Monetary policy has much more of an impact on our economy than Fiscal policy. During the "trickle-down" period (80-84) The Federal Reserve had interest rates higher than they have been for most of this century - with Treasury Bonds spiking up near 12% or higher. This actually was the driving market force over any spend policy our executive branch could muster. I admit - this isnt truly my finding, but the majority viewpoint from historical economists. During 84-88 Reagan's plan to increase our national defense at such a rapid pace backed Russia out of the Cold War - partly because they knew they couldnt match the growth of our war resources.
As for what happened? Well - since neither Fiscal or Monetary policy really takes hold on the economy for at least a yr or two, one could say the Fed's hightened interest rates had a very positive effect coming out of the 80s into the greatest boom period this country has ever seen (followed by the greatest bust since the Great Depression 00-02). Do I attribute any of the economic activity to "Trickle Down Economics"? Nope. In my opinion, the birth rate has much more impact on macroeconomics than Fiscal policy could ever dream of having.

Sorry - back to your regular scheduled us v. them.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Fri May 21, 2004 11:08 am

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Jetlag - Using specifically presidential endorsements is an interesting way to create a survey since historically newspapers and netwoks will endorse the incumbant president. There are also many other ways to show bias - in one direction or the other - simply by manipulating either the question or the indicator. If you would like me to give you links to Accuracy In Media, Mediawatch, The Center for Media and Public Affairs, or many other media watchdog groups Id be happy to. Most of them have studies "proving" a Liberal bias in mainstream media - just like FAIR likes to publish their studies "proving" the opposite.


Sorry to butt in, but the study you're talking about was done by Editor and Publisher. Not FAIR.

And during that time, the democrat has been the incumbant in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964, 1980, and 1996. That's six. The republicans have been the incumbant in 1956, 1972, 1976 (kinda), 1984, and 1992. That's five, if you count Gerald Ford, which I don't think we should because he was so clearly getting kicked out of office.

Now, you claim that historically the media will endorse the incumbant. But, even though the Dems were the incumbants at a greater rate, the republicans were endorsed every race sans two (I'll assume the Ford one here, but I don't know what the other is). Again, this from a magazine not geared towards politics but geared towards watching trends in the media.

To me, that gives lie to any conservative claims about "liberal bias." I'll close with one of my favorite quotes, this one from Bill Kristol, editor of the National Standard: "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."



Oh, and thanks Trans. Well said.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Transmogrifier » Fri May 21, 2004 11:17 am

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Economic lesson:

Reagans "trickle down economics" never happened. Ive actually done personal research on this topic by studying the economic environment during 1980-1984 and 1984-1988. One rule of thumb to remember when discussing our economy - Monetary policy has much more of an impact on our economy than Fiscal policy. During the "trickle-down" period (80-84) The Federal Reserve had interest rates higher than they have been for most of this century - with Treasury Bonds spiking up near 12% or higher. This actually was the driving market force over any spend policy our executive branch could muster. I admit - this isnt truly my finding, but the majority viewpoint from historical economists. During 84-88 Reagan's plan to increase our national defense at such a rapid pace backed Russia out of the Cold War - partly because they knew they couldnt match the growth of our war resources.
As for what happened? Well - since neither Fiscal or Monetary policy really takes hold on the economy for at least a yr or two, one could say the Fed's hightened interest rates had a very positive effect coming out of the 80s into the greatest boom period this country has ever seen (followed by the greatest bust since the Great Depression 00-02). Do I attribute any of the economic activity to "Trickle Down Economics"? Nope. In my opinion, the birth rate has much more impact on macroeconomics than Fiscal policy could ever dream of having.

Sorry - back to your regular scheduled us v. them.


You're right. We have a floating exchange rate. Now, without getting into the nuts and bolts of macroeconomics, in a floating exchange rate (vs. a fixed one, like the pegged Argentine rate that led to their economic collapse), when you use fiscal policy (government spending/taxes) the exchange rate usually adjusts to largely negate the fiscal tools.

With monetary policy (money supply, Fed Reserve), this is not the case. That’s the amazing thing about Reagan’s avowed policy—it was based on a false premise, that fiscal policy could spur economic growth.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri May 21, 2004 11:29 am

Your analysis of spending under Bush is spot on. If he loses the upcomming election one of the main reasons will be the disent shown by fiscal conservatives like myself. Pork spending under this administration is staggering - and I am not talking about the increase in military spending whatsoever.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Transmogrifier » Fri May 21, 2004 11:36 am

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Your analysis of spending under Bush is spot on. If he loses the upcomming election one of the main reasons will be the disent shown by fiscal conservatives like myself. Pork spending under this administration is staggering - and I am not talking about the increase in military spending whatsoever.


Thanks, it gets me so mad when Republicans call Kerry a free-spender. Bush is one of the biggest spenders ever. He's trying to straddle the fence--hold conservatives in his pocket while reaching out to the soccer moms and others with social programs.

I'm not sure it's working.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Madison » Fri May 21, 2004 11:48 am

Transmogrifier wrote:
Madison wrote:Trans, why is the tobacco lawsuit legit? Doesn't McDonalds target kids too? So if a kid gets fat (eating McDonalds), grows up fat (eating McDonalds), and dies due to a fat related illness, would the family have the right to sue McDonalds because they target kids in the ads? They even give away toys trying to entice the children to convince mommy and daddy to take them there.


Mad, I see the difference as one of addiciton. Tobacco companies targeted kids to get them addicted. They even made it clear that they were doing this to replace the users that are dying because of their product.

As far as I know, there are no drugs in burgers.


Addictive is a subjective term. Anything can be called addictive now. Sex/Music/Video Games/Food/etc. the list goes on forever. It's an excuse for people with weak self control. I know smokers who have smoked 2 packs a day for 25 years and then just quit cold turkey. Never picked up another one. Obviously it won't kill someone to stop doing what they are "addicted" to, so it's a self control issue to me. Just because someone chooses to do something to themselves that they know is bad for them, I do not feel they should be able to hold someone else responsible. They made not just one, but two mistakes. Doing it in the first place, and then not having the self control to quit. That does not equal a reward in my opinion.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby Transmogrifier » Fri May 21, 2004 11:50 am

I don't consider video games an addiction.

But nicotine has been proven to be chemically addictive.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Madison » Fri May 21, 2004 11:57 am

Transmogrifier wrote:I don't consider video games an addiction.

But nicotine has been proven to be chemically addictive.


Anything that releases endorphins can be considered addictive. The Rush so to speak.

Other examples: Stealing, driving too fast, fighting, etc. Like I said, the list is endless and you don't see lawsuits. Why? Because they would get thrown out before they ever got started. Then again, it seems that people are winning lawsuits for all kinds of ridiculous claims, so who knows. :-/
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby Transmogrifier » Fri May 21, 2004 12:25 pm

Madison wrote:
Transmogrifier wrote:I don't consider video games an addiction.

But nicotine has been proven to be chemically addictive.


Anything that releases endorphins can be considered addictive. The Rush so to speak.

Other examples: Stealing, driving too fast, fighting, etc. Like I said, the list is endless and you don't see lawsuits. Why? Because they would get thrown out before they ever got started. Then again, it seems that people are winning lawsuits for all kinds of ridiculous claims, so who knows. :-/


I see a difference between endorphins and drugs. Would you make the claim that addiction--whether crack, nicotine or stealing cars--is the same? I don't.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Sep. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(1:05 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(1:05 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(4:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Boston at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Cleveland at Minnesota
(7:10 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Houston
(7:10 pm)
NY Mets at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(8:40 pm)
Texas at LA Angels
(9:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact