Honestly... we haven't seen effects of policies yet.

The vast majority of people can't cite a particular Obama  policy which has stopped their economic hardships.  Unless that can be done, it means Obama's fellowship is still in the honeymoon period.  In other words, people are supporting Obama based on perception, not on policy results.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ,
King of Endless Glory!!!!

Don't you mean Lord Obama? 

Let's line Iluvatar right up alongside Flint!  If we have one spammer, this thread proves we have a second.

1: Zarf BeebleBrix

> avogadro wrote:

> free market economy doesnt work for agriculture because when prices go down on food, people dont eat more food, the demand stays constant.

Obesity proves you wrong on this.

Food isn't one single category.  There is a level of need-based food, and a level of desire-based food, both operating at the same time.

Need-based food would include cheap bread.  Some examples would include bread, cereal, or instant soup.  Basically, this includes anything cheap.

Then there's the desire-based foods.  This is anything that's even remotely a luxury.  Going to a nice restaurant to eat, making lobster at home instead of a ham sandwich, or even something as simple as lower-fat meat.

Here's how it works:

When the price for food increases, there is an overall reduction in food consumption.  People who are obese may simply not be able to afford as much food, and have to cut down.  In addition, less filling foods may be eaten instead of more filling foods.  For example, if food prices are expensive, I may skip having chicken for lunch in order to have a ham sandwich.  That reduces the demand for both meat (which is generally more filling than vegetables), and for the corn used to feed those chickens.

Then theres issue #2: food quality.  When the price of food is low, I can afford to grab a dessert after lunch, or go out to eat instead of eating at home.  I can get higher quality food.  However, at higher prices, I'm forced to favor lower prices instead, causing my lunch will be cheaper, as I substitute a glass of milk with a glass of water and some chicken for a sandwich.

Now, if the food industry was more monopolized, I would agree with you that market economics doesn't work.  However, there are SOOOOOOOO many businesses in the food industry that it is truly competitive.  The only exception to this stance would probably be the fact that farmers have formed lobbies to Congress, organizing together to get government subsidies.

I'm not trying to say who would win.  Just saying that he has a shot to respond. 

You have to answer to "his" satisfaction, though.  That means all he has to say is that he's unsatisfied, and you lose.  Therefore, for you to win, you would inevitably have to say, "okay, why are you unsatisfied?"  Thus... a debate.

Before I begin, some clarifying issues:

1: What is it specifically you want me to defend?  It seems like you want me to defend that Democrats can get the world to unite in harmony?  That Democrats can start a change toward global peace, freedom, and democracy?  That sort of thing?

2: And also, if I believe your question assumes a faulty premise, is it within my ability to challenge that premise and, if that premise is shown to be false, modify the question?

3: For the sake of allowing us to have a stable position regarding what the ideals of the Democrats are, is it acceptable to say that the actions (not words, but actions, so that I can't just say "change" and be done with the debate) of Obama are representative of what the Democratic party believes and, thus, what would need to be defended?  Otherwise, you will end up saying "But Michael Moore doesn't believe that, and he represents the Democratic Party," whereas I could say "No, Lieberman and Zell Miller believe this, and they're representative of the party," and we could go back and forth, naming person after person... besides, remember that the President has much more political influence than particular Congressmen.  If any one person is representative of the Democrats, it's him.

I am so in this! 

Very simple:

1: North Korea isn't as imminent a threat to certain nuclear powers as Iran is.  Unlike North Korea, Israel and France will be pushing, day after day, for large scale strikes.  That means negotiation won't be delayed as much, not because Iran won't manipulate negotiation, but because if they do, France and Israel will say, "Screw it, this is useless," and go unilateral.

2: Delay means they lose a foothold in their economy, due to their printing.  Give me an example of one nation that has managed to retain political stability during hyperinflation.  And even if you can do that, it would assume a nation that can obtain international assistance, either through investment or aid.  Iran is an island.

Nobody rolls like this?

www.themustard.com/bold_faith/stop-drop-crop.jpg

Wow...

McDonald's!  I hear they have this awesome thing called a "Big Mac!"  And if you're really adventurous, you can ask them to do something called "super sizing it!"  Basically, it gives you more of their delicacies for a small additional charge.