Optimist: Wish I Could Be One

[PoliticalChic]

"I don't see how you can make a blanket statement about Obama messing up the country, but not offering any evidence as to 'why'."


Evidence coming right up:

1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.


2.Real household income is down 5%


3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%


4. Total federal debt is up 58%


5. Gasoline prices are up 82%


6. Food stamp recipients up 49%


7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

Unless you can prove, or even make a convincing argument, that President Obama actually caused any of that, then you might as well be claiming that President Reagan caused the AIDs epidemic in the US.

Exactly.

Which is why the premise of the OP is a lie and fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Uh oh....you're back?
Who left the cover off the chamber pot???

 

[PoliticalChic]

No you can't. You have never demonstrated cause and effect. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the economy to eventually expand during his presidency. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the breakup of the Soviet Union.

...the lengths the left goes to denigrate Reagan are simply astounding

What we have here is historically settled matters, though complex, thoroughly analyzed and understood, reduced to the sour grapes of political resentment.

But, then Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible. The people of the respective nations, unencumbered by the artificial constrains of government and threat, did the rest. And that's the way Reagan saw things too and rightly so, as he, being the wise and humble man that he was, would have never presumed to imagine himself be anything more than the best he could be, unlike the narcissistic Messianic One of Hopey-Change.

Folks like you and me, PC, Katzndogz, Unkotare, mudwhistle, AquaAthena, ShaklesOfBigGov, save liberty and others: we get that too.

Today, we have Obama, community organizer and schlepper extraordinaire, a man about many towns and parties, Mr. Fund Raiser, intrepid golfer and inveterate campaigner.

That's the difference.

So without Reagan's 'fortitude', the business cycle would have ceased to function.

lol, good one.

Actually, fortitude is an apt term in this connection.

Unlike the spineless Liberals:

"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1


The Amazing and Mysterious Life of Ronald Reagan The National Interest

 

[JoeB131]

4. But, since you are begging for my analysis of Jimmy Carter.....

a. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years.Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

A couple of comments here. Obviously, you are too young to remember the Iranian Revolution. Having watched it in real time, there was no way Carter could have "Saved" the Shah.

Also, Iran was invaded by Iraq. What were they supposed to do?

b. "Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”
Dr. Abbas Milani, Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah”


Carter is a money-grubbing moron. He reeks dishonesty.
No wonder he's your idol.

First, Iran is a Democracy. They have elections. They might not vote for people you like, but they do get a vote.

And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. But, since you are begging for my analysis of Jimmy Carter.....

a. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years.Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

A couple of comments here. Obviously, you are too young to remember the Iranian Revolution. Having watched it in real time, there was no way Carter could have "Saved" the Shah.

Also, Iran was invaded by Iraq. What were they supposed to do?

b. "Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”
Dr. Abbas Milani, Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah”


Carter is a money-grubbing moron. He reeks dishonesty.
No wonder he's your idol.

First, Iran is a Democracy. They have elections. They might not vote for people you like, but they do get a vote.

And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?

1. "Having watched it in real time, there was no way Carter could have "Saved" the Shah."

I said nothing about 'saving the Shah.'
How about you stick to what I actually post.

Iran is the foremost purveyor of terrorism: it was facilitated by Jimmy Carter.



2."Also, Iran was invaded by Iraq. What were they supposed to do?"
He could have done what Reagan did and what FDR should have done: play two villains off against each other.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. But, since you are begging for my analysis of Jimmy Carter.....

a. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years.Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

A couple of comments here. Obviously, you are too young to remember the Iranian Revolution. Having watched it in real time, there was no way Carter could have "Saved" the Shah.

Also, Iran was invaded by Iraq. What were they supposed to do?

b. "Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”
Dr. Abbas Milani, Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah”


Carter is a money-grubbing moron. He reeks dishonesty.
No wonder he's your idol.

First, Iran is a Democracy. They have elections. They might not vote for people you like, but they do get a vote.

And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Reagan learned from the New Deal and deficit spending under the name New Deal, Reganomics, or the Bush/Obama Stimulus can be a good thing. Trick is making people forget the interest on the deficit thanks to economic growth and or inflation.

No you can't. You have never demonstrated cause and effect. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the economy to eventually expand during his presidency. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the breakup of the Soviet Union.

...the lengths the left goes to denigrate Reagan are simply astounding

What we have here is historically settled matters, though complex, thoroughly analyzed and understood, reduced to the sour grapes of political resentment.

But, then Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible. The people of the respective nations, unencumbered by the artificial constrains of government and threat, did the rest. And that's the way Reagan saw things too and rightly so, as he, being the wise and humble man that he was, would have never presumed to imagine himself be anything more than the best he could be, unlike the narcissistic Messianic One of Hopey-Change.

Folks like you and me, PC, Katzndogz, Unkotare, mudwhistle, AquaAthena, ShaklesOfBigGov, save liberty and others: we get that too.

Today, we have Obama, community organizer and schlepper extraordinaire, a man about many towns and parties, Mr. Fund Raiser, intrepid golfer and inveterate campaigner.

That's the difference.

So without Reagan's 'fortitude', the business cycle would have ceased to function.

lol, good one.

Not even close. So much for Lefty's "nuance." You see, Lefty doesn't get it.

Let me underscore the point. In the above what I should have written is that Reagan "would have never presumed to imagine himself to be anything more than just one of the guys who merely reiterated the classical ideas of liberty, which he inherited from others, and the best man he could be." That's it. The people, creating and producing, are the real heroes. That's what he believed and that's what he lived.

Now lets look at Lefty. Lefty's the self-anointed nanny. The people are too stupid to manage their own lives. They're the benighted and maddening crowd. Lefty knows best. He talks about nuance and the necessity of complex and comprehensive solutions to evils that exist nowhere else but in his addled mind. But his nuance are bromides, and his complex and comprehensive solutions are the government programs and regulation that suppress and squander the material and intellectual capital of the people.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

4. But, since you are begging for my analysis of Jimmy Carter.....

a. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years.Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

A couple of comments here. Obviously, you are too young to remember the Iranian Revolution. Having watched it in real time, there was no way Carter could have "Saved" the Shah.

Also, Iran was invaded by Iraq. What were they supposed to do?

b. "Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”
Dr. Abbas Milani, Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah”


Carter is a money-grubbing moron. He reeks dishonesty.
No wonder he's your idol.

First, Iran is a Democracy. They have elections. They might not vote for people you like, but they do get a vote.

And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

Indeed, the theocracy of cultural and economic Marxism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, president Obama setting policies to perform government "experiments" of hindering oil drilling permits in the gulf, setting regulations in hopes to bankrupt and drive out the coal industry, while offering government subsidies on a Chevy Volt that fails on production quotas with consumers is not how you strengthen a fragile economy. Taxpayers have already seen money thrown away at financially unstable green companies, that are merely political financial donors over any actual sound investments of alternative energy. President Obama wasn't a confident choice among voters who hoped to see lobbyists out of Obama's administration as he promised. Hope and Change became "more of the same", with an economy filled with part time employment over the creation of long term high paying career jobs. The voters saw transparency, and televised broadcasts that promise to reveal those "evil companies" looking to profit and make a deal on health care be replaced with Democrat closed door deals. They saw an administration hide behind the death of a boarder agent under Fast and Furious, while the administration "plays the media" in becoming all to eager for Eric Holder to investigate a teen shot by a cop under the promotion of racism. We have a President who glorifies the spotlight, but stands in the way of every administrative investigation. These are but a few that Obama's actions have revealed about his domestic policies and administrative choices. Doesn't speak much of his legacy that he leaves behind.

I wish I'd written that, and the Carter-malaise retort was brilliant. Good job.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No you can't. You have never demonstrated cause and effect. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the economy to eventually expand during his presidency. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the breakup of the Soviet Union.

...the lengths the left goes to denigrate Reagan are simply astounding

What we have here is historically settled matters, though complex, thoroughly analyzed and understood, reduced to the sour grapes of political resentment.

But, then Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible. The people of the respective nations, unencumbered by the artificial constrains of government and threat, did the rest. And that's the way Reagan saw things too and rightly so, as he, being the wise and humble man that he was, would have never presumed to imagine himself be anything more than the best he could be, unlike the narcissistic Messianic One of Hopey-Change.

Folks like you and me, PC, Katzndogz, Unkotare, mudwhistle, AquaAthena, ShaklesOfBigGov, save liberty and others: we get that too.

Today, we have Obama, community organizer and schlepper extraordinaire, a man about many towns and parties, Mr. Fund Raiser, intrepid golfer and inveterate campaigner.

That's the difference.

So without Reagan's 'fortitude', the business cycle would have ceased to function.

lol, good one.

So the Business cycle must be racist, is that why it's so mean to Obama?

 

[francoHFW]

Get some fresh air and turn off the 24/7 Pub propaganda. We've done nothing but slowly recover from Booosh/GOP catastrophes, even with their 100% mindless obstruction.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Reagan learned from the New Deal and deficit spending under the name New Deal, Reganomics, or the Bush/Obama Stimulus can be a good thing. Trick is making people forget the interest on the deficit thanks to economic growth and or inflation.

This is sort of thing you get from deficit-charts history.

"Reaganomics" was not demand-side Keynesianism, but the tried and proven supply-side approach. Initially, the national debt increased as a result of infrastructural military spending, which can be simulative when correctly applied—unlike the boondoggle of "Obamanomics," the resurrection of demand-side Keynesianism, albeit, the graft of not-so-shovel-ready-jobs-and-political-kickback—as he rebuilt the military and supplemented the modernization and expansion of the nuclear arsenal of NATO along with our allies. Against that spending, he did in fact propose and got significant reductions in domestic spending, reducing the size of and even eliminating several, utterly useless programs. Notwithstanding, he was also compelled to compromise with a Democrat-controlled Congress, which increased spending in other areas, so that he could get what the country needed. That was the price tag. So it was a wash.

But that's not the whole story either. Reagan’s dramatic reduction in the tax rates which got the economy moving again provided for increased revenues at historically unprecedented levels for the next 18 to 20 years due to the ongoing growth and expansion of the economy at lower rates of taxation. The result, along with the defeat of the Soviet Union and, therefore, the luxury to dramatically reduce military spending during the 90s: surpluses for the first time in decades. If we could only get Lefty out of the way, supply-side economics and real reduction in the size of government would cure what ails us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Left are pathological lairs. They lied about the greatness of FDR, about how McCarthy used his HUAC to blacklist Hollywood writers and now they lie about Reagan. Hell, they're calling their Uncle Joe Stalin a "Conservative"!!

 

[JoeB131]

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

I'm sorry, what's the whole trying to ban abortion and gay marriage about then?

The Ayatollahs in Iran have nothing on the Christian "Wrong" ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

I'm sorry, what's the whole trying to ban abortion and gay marriage about then?

The Ayatollahs in Iran have nothing on the Christian "Wrong" ...

Banning murder hardly defines only a theocracy.

 

[JoeB131]

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

I'm sorry, what's the whole trying to ban abortion and gay marriage about then?

The Ayatollahs in Iran have nothing on the Christian "Wrong" ...

Banning murder hardly defines only a theocracy.

Except most people don't think abortion is murder.

Even when abortion was illegal, people who performed them were not charged with Murder.

Nope, this is pure religious nuttery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

I'm sorry, what's the whole trying to ban abortion and gay marriage about then?

The Ayatollahs in Iran have nothing on the Christian "Wrong" ...

Banning murder hardly defines only a theocracy.

Except most people don't think abortion is murder.

Even when abortion was illegal, people who performed them were not charged with Murder.

Nope, this is pure religious nuttery.

"....most people....blah blah blah...."

"CNN poll: 58% oppose abortion in most or all cases"
CNN poll 58 oppose abortion in most or all cases Hot Air


So glad that you never tire of being wrong....there is a value in rectitude having a foil such as you...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As long as we essentially have no southern border, this country is a lost cause.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

As is true of so much of what you post.....you will be unable to back that up.

I'm sorry, what's the whole trying to ban abortion and gay marriage about then?

The Ayatollahs in Iran have nothing on the Christian "Wrong" ...

Banning murder hardly defines only a theocracy.

Except most people don't think abortion is murder.

Even when abortion was illegal, people who performed them were not charged with Murder.

Nope, this is pure religious nuttery.

No one should think abortion proper is murder, as there are medically legitimate contingencies wherein it might be necessary and not an act of depraved indifference to human life. However, abortion on demand is murder, well within the scope of the people's government to legitimately prohibit as such, and until you can provide a rational argument, which you can't, that God doesn't exist, I would suggest that you note the logically fallacious arguments of your religious nuttery, i.e., the appeals to the authority of the majority or to that of legal history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


Libs looking through shit covered glasses have very unclear vision needless to say.

Not at all.

I look at the pre-Reagan world where guys like my dad had good union jobs and the post Reagan world where we don't.

And clearly see we are worse off for it.

Reagan learned from the New Deal and deficit spending under the name New Deal, Reganomics, or the Bush/Obama Stimulus can be a good thing. Trick is making people forget the interest on the deficit thanks to economic growth and or inflation.

No you can't. You have never demonstrated cause and effect. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the economy to eventually expand during his presidency. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the breakup of the Soviet Union.

...the lengths the left goes to denigrate Reagan are simply astounding

What we have here is historically settled matters, though complex, thoroughly analyzed and understood, reduced to the sour grapes of political resentment.

But, then Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible. The people of the respective nations, unencumbered by the artificial constrains of government and threat, did the rest. And that's the way Reagan saw things too and rightly so, as he, being the wise and humble man that he was, would have never presumed to imagine himself be anything more than the best he could be, unlike the narcissistic Messianic One of Hopey-Change.

Folks like you and me, PC, Katzndogz, Unkotare, mudwhistle, AquaAthena, ShaklesOfBigGov, save liberty and others: we get that too.

Today, we have Obama, community organizer and schlepper extraordinaire, a man about many towns and parties, Mr. Fund Raiser, intrepid golfer and inveterate campaigner.

That's the difference.

So without Reagan's 'fortitude', the business cycle would have ceased to function.

lol, good one.

Not even close. So much for Lefty's "nuance." You see, Lefty doesn't get it.

Let me underscore the point. In the above what I should have written is that Reagan "would have never presumed to imagine himself to be anything more than just one of the guys who merely reiterated the classical ideas of liberty, which he inherited from others, and the best man he could be." That's it. The people, creating and producing, are the real heroes. That's what he believed and that's what he lived.

Now lets look at Lefty. Lefty's the self-anointed nanny. The people are too stupid to manage their own lives. They're the benighted and maddening crowd. Lefty knows best. He talks about nuance and the necessity of complex and comprehensive solutions to evils that exist nowhere else but in his addled mind. But his nuance are bromides, and his complex and comprehensive solutions are the government programs and regulation that suppress and squander the material and intellectual capital of the people.

You said:

"Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible."

Now, if Reagan's leadership and fortitude made the expansion (which is one part of the business cycle) possible,

then without that it wouldn't have been possible.

That is what you said - without Reagan's fortitude, the business cycle would have ceased to function.

Again, good one.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[


Libs looking through shit covered glasses have very unclear vision needless to say.

Not at all.

I look at the pre-Reagan world where guys like my dad had good union jobs and the post Reagan world where we don't.

And clearly see we are worse off for it.

Reagan learned from the New Deal and deficit spending under the name New Deal, Reganomics, or the Bush/Obama Stimulus can be a good thing. Trick is making people forget the interest on the deficit thanks to economic growth and or inflation.

No you can't. You have never demonstrated cause and effect. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the economy to eventually expand during his presidency. You have never even attempted to make an argument that Reagan CAUSED the breakup of the Soviet Union.

...the lengths the left goes to denigrate Reagan are simply astounding

What we have here is historically settled matters, though complex, thoroughly analyzed and understood, reduced to the sour grapes of political resentment.

But, then Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible. The people of the respective nations, unencumbered by the artificial constrains of government and threat, did the rest. And that's the way Reagan saw things too and rightly so, as he, being the wise and humble man that he was, would have never presumed to imagine himself be anything more than the best he could be, unlike the narcissistic Messianic One of Hopey-Change.

Folks like you and me, PC, Katzndogz, Unkotare, mudwhistle, AquaAthena, ShaklesOfBigGov, save liberty and others: we get that too.

Today, we have Obama, community organizer and schlepper extraordinaire, a man about many towns and parties, Mr. Fund Raiser, intrepid golfer and inveterate campaigner.

That's the difference.

So without Reagan's 'fortitude', the business cycle would have ceased to function.

lol, good one.

Not even close. So much for Lefty's "nuance." You see, Lefty doesn't get it.

Let me underscore the point. In the above what I should have written is that Reagan "would have never presumed to imagine himself to be anything more than just one of the guys who merely reiterated the classical ideas of liberty, which he inherited from others, and the best man he could be." That's it. The people, creating and producing, are the real heroes. That's what he believed and that's what he lived.

Now lets look at Lefty. Lefty's the self-anointed nanny. The people are too stupid to manage their own lives. They're the benighted and maddening crowd. Lefty knows best. He talks about nuance and the necessity of complex and comprehensive solutions to evils that exist nowhere else but in his addled mind. But his nuance are bromides, and his complex and comprehensive solutions are the government programs and regulation that suppress and squander the material and intellectual capital of the people.

You said:

"Reagan didn't cause the economy to expand or cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was his policies, his unwavering conviction, his inspiring leadership and fortitude, and those of many others, that made these achievements possible."

Now, if Reagan's leadership and fortitude made the expansion (which is one part of the business cycle) possible,

then without that it wouldn't have been possible.

That is what you said - without Reagan's fortitude, the business cycle would have ceased to function.

Again, good one.

Wrong again. For the things that make it possible for something to occur are not necessarily the same things as those that made it occur. Reagan's policies removed some of the artificial constraints of the government that inhibited the dynamics of realty, including those of human nature, that stood in the way. The latter then caused the expansion. See how that works?

Dealing with Sophistry 101. The next class starts after your next post.


____________________

Edit: ". . . make it possible. . ."