Are you SURE Obama supports gun rights?

[TheWalrus]

And you convince me how the supply side does not manipulate the market. Or do you really think we are tethered to gasoline engines and coal and oil fired electricitybecause no viable alternative is developed? Or do you think the government was not manipulating the market for its friends by mandating new light bulbs and TVs, because the market was not going in those directions on its own fast enough?

Tell me how Bush wasn't tarred with pics of flag draped coffins, yet Obama has yet to receive the coverage of his drone strikes and gun running. You seem to believe that the demand side totally dictates what the supply side does. But the supply side can manipulate the demand side as well. Or have you forgotten the secret ingredient in coca cola, or how cigarettes were spiked?

I don't agree with supply side economics, no. In most industries the competition for demand ultimately makes the supply side deal a relatively straight hand, in my view. Sure there are exceptions but not really all that many. I remember a popular conspiracy theory from my youth was that the car companies were stopping hover boards from reaching the market. The oft repeated story now seems to be of an easy source of clean energy that's not being tapped because of the oil lobby. Fables all.

True conspiracies of this type are rare because a controlling monopoly not only has to have total access to the supply of whatever it's selling, but also have total control over the innovation it's withholding. That's a hard set of variables to master. You do see it with video games. The abysmal upgrades from year to year of EA's Madden franchise are an example. NFL2K had undoubtedly better game play, especially at the beginning. That forced EA to ramp up their quality... which they quickly ramped down again once they secured an exclusive contract with the NFL and NFLPA, and now offer little more than roster updates with each new version.

I don't agree it applies to the media. There are endless choices for the public. No entity has control over the supply. Not even close. That means any viewing demographic that can be tapped, will. An "uneven" supply therefore would only imply an uneven demand. These examples you're offering as a counter aren't even good ones. Hardly one to one. But specifics can never make the case for a general argument that doesn't hold water.

[MoFinz]

I don't agree with supply side economics, no. In most industries the competition for demand ultimately makes the supply side deal a relatively straight hand, in my view. Sure there are exceptions but not really all that many. I remember a popular conspiracy theory from my youth was that the car companies were stopping hover boards from reaching the market. The oft repeated story now seems to be of an easy source of clean energy that's not being tapped because of the oil lobby. Fables all.

True conspiracies of this type are rare because a controlling monopoly not only has to have total access to the supply of whatever it's selling, but also have total control over the innovation it's withholding. That's a hard set of variables to master. You do see it with video games. The abysmal upgrades from year to year of EA's Madden franchise are an example. NFL2K had undoubtedly better game play, especially at the beginning. That forced EA to ramp up their quality... which they quickly ramped down again once they secured an exclusive contract with the NFL and NFLPA, and now offer little more than roster updates with each new version.

I don't agree it applies to the media. There are endless choices for the public. No entity has control over the supply. Not even close. That means any viewing demographic that can be tapped, will. An "uneven" supply therefore would only imply an uneven demand. These examples you're offering as a counter aren't even good ones. Hardly one to one. But specifics can never make the case for a general argument that doesn't hold water.

LOL...so, because you refuse to acknowledge it, it must be a fallacy.

Seriously? And you offer up a lame game analogy to boot?

Look, I can't make you believe something you refuse to. Saying something doesn't exist because of economic dynamics is the ultimate in making a general argument because your specifics cant be presented. It's like saying he isn't excused by others playing the race card. You know it happens, but it must be to make $$.

And back on point.....Obama has shown his predliction regarding guns. All guns. He has no re-election to worry about. This would, in the immortal words of Gaffe Biden be a "Big F'n Deal". His legacy would be defined by Healthcare and gun control.....a progressive 2fer. He has no reason not to go for this, and to go all out, as shown by the White House releases regarding the matter. Never let a crisis (even a made up one) go to waste.

And i think we would agree, the slope only gets more slippery when you start down it.

[TheWalrus]

LOL...so, because you refuse to acknowledge it, it must be a fallacy.

Did I say that?

Seriously? And you offer up a lame game analogy to boot?

At least it fits the argument you're trying to make. That's more than you did on your own behalf.

Look, I can't make you believe something you refuse to. Saying something doesn't exist because of economic dynamics is the ultimate in making a general argument because your specifics cant be presented. It's like saying he isn't excused by others playing the race card. You know it happens, but it must be to make $$.

In a murder investigation, it doesn't matter how many pieces of circumstantial evidence, or psychological profiles, lead you to suspect someone. If they were in the state at the time of the killing, they didn't do it.

I find it hilarious you're denegrating a general philosophy that is supported by evidence and economic theory when all you and posters like jared81 have to offer on the subject are general but unsupportable statements like "you know it happens", followed by a few flimsy and subjective examples.

There is no way to amass all the specific evidence to support or deny a claim like "the media has a liberal bias." There's just too much information. Therefore it makes sense to investigate whether the claim even fits the circumstances of the world we live in. In this case it doesn't.

I might have made an error trying to have a serious debate about this with you. You don't seem willing to have one.

And back on point.....Obama has shown his predliction regarding guns. All guns. He has no re-election to worry about. This would, in the immortal words of Gaffe Biden be a "Big F'n Deal". His legacy would be defined by Healthcare and gun control.....a progressive 2fer. He has no reason not to go for this, and to go all out, as shown by the White House releases regarding the matter. Never let a crisis (even a made up one) go to waste.

And i think we would agree, the slope only gets more slippery when you start down it.

We'll see. Any fight over gun control would be costly both in terms of political capital and in time. Not having to be reelected isn't the only factor. Your ability to persuade waffling legislators to support your cause has a lot to do with your personal popularity.

[MoFinz]

Markets are able to be manipulated. Just because it's a wide market does not make it any less succeptable to manipulation. The cigraette market was wide, as was the cola market. Just because they dont fit into your argument against media manipulation is no reason to dismiss the fact manipulation exists.

You want facts, i've given real life examples you choose not to believe. The BIGGEST example being the article posted here that exposes Obama's gun control stance. You refuse to acknowledge this is how he really feels only by ignoring the fact it was an unpopular stance that was shot down, but now he has weapons to try and enforce his views now. He doesn't have to worry about blowback...he's already in office for the last run. He doesn't need Senators or Congressmen if he attempt an Executive Order, although that surely would not pass Supreme Court scrutiny. Or would it? After the Health Care debacle, who knows about that anymore?

Again, there are none so blind as those who choose not to see

[MoFinz]

Markets are able to be manipulated. Just because it's a wide market does not make it any less succeptable to manipulation. The cigraette market was wide, as was the cola market. Just because they dont fit into your argument against media manipulation is no reason to dismiss the fact manipulation exists.

You want facts, i've given real life examples you choose not to believe. The BIGGEST example being the article posted here that exposes Obama's gun control stance. You refuse to acknowledge this is how he really feels only by ignoring the fact it was an unpopular stance that was shot down, but now he has weapons to try and enforce his views now. He doesn't have to worry about blowback...he's already in office for the last run. He doesn't need Senators or Congressmen if he attempt an Executive Order, although that surely would not pass Supreme Court scrutiny. Or would it? After the Health Care debacle, who knows about that anymore?

Again, there are none so blind as those who choose not to see. I'm willing to debate, but i cant carry the load for you, you have to be open to debate.

[MoFinz]

We'll see. Any fight over gun control would be costly both in terms of political capital and in time. Not having to be reelected isn't the only factor. Your ability to persuade waffling legislators to support your cause has a lot to do with your personal popularity.

Well, here's your non-biased media telling you, he has a full hard on for this...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.