Thomas Sowell lists hilary's lack of accomplishment in her lifetime in politics...

[2aguy]

You can't go wrong with Thomas Sowelll. He really nails down the myth of hilary.....

A Simple Question - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

For someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics, including being a Senator and then a Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has nothing to show for all those years -- no significant legislation of hers that she got passed in the Senate, and only an unbroken series of international setbacks for the United States during her time as Secretary of State.

Before Barack Obama entered the White House and appointed Mrs. Clinton Secretary of State, Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq had notified their higher ups, stationed in Pakistan, that their cause was lost in Iraq and that there was no point sending more men there.

Hosni Mubarak was in charge in Egypt. He posed no threat to American or Western interests in the Middle East or to Christians within Egypt or to Israel. But the Obama administration threw its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over and began terrorizing Christians in Egypt and promoting hostility to Israel.

In Libya next door, the Qaddafi regime had already given up its weapons of mass destruction, after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But President Obama's foreign policy, carried out by Secretary of State Clinton, got Qaddafi removed, after which Libya became a terrorist haven where an American ambassador was killed, for the first time in decades.

 

[kiwiman127]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

 

[2aguy]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

except paul krugman is an idiot...and Thomas Sowell actually knows what he is talking about.......

 

[Jackson]

Now, let's give credit where credit's due. She showed up and voted when she was a senator and initiated a bill to create a monument to Woodstock. That's our girl! How many years in politics and she's got a statue to, of all things that matter...Woodstock!

edit: She wanted an earmark for a MUSEUM to Woodstock with a $1million price tag... but the Senate said no...sorry Hillary.

Hippie Museum Funding Proposed by Hillary Clinton Shot Down in Senate Fox News

 

[kiwiman127]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

except paul krugman is an idiot...and Thomas Sowell actually knows what he is talking about.......

I'm shocked , I say shocked that you would say that!

 

[Jackson]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

except paul krugman is an idiot...and Thomas Sowell actually knows what he is talking about.......

I'm shocked , I say shocked that you would say that!

Thomas Sowell is a great columnist. He does know what he's talking about!

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

Sowell's credentials aren't the issue. What he says is either right or wrong based on the facts and logic he presents. Only left-wing turds think the correctness of a statement is determined by the credentials of the person who authors it.

 

[kiwiman127]

Yeah, it's amazing that those on the right think Sowell on target and the reason is simple, he's from the right and his views reflect that ideology. Is he objective? No. He's a true ideologue, when that happens objective logic is thrown out the window.
My opinion of Krugman is the same as my opinion of Sowell. If I want objectivity and intellectual honesty, I'd be best served ignoring any ideologue.
If people have a rough time understanding why I refuse to consider a hyper-ideologue for objectivity, well they have already stunted their thinking process.

 

[MACAULAY]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

_______________________________________________

But, you said nothing about his opinion as expressed in the Original Post. It made sense to me without regard to who wrote it.

Can you refute it?

What about what he said?

Do you have anything for that?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[jillian]

You can't go wrong with Thomas Sowelll. He really nails down the myth of hilary.....

A Simple Question - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

For someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics, including being a Senator and then a Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has nothing to show for all those years -- no significant legislation of hers that she got passed in the Senate, and only an unbroken series of international setbacks for the United States during her time as Secretary of State.

Before Barack Obama entered the White House and appointed Mrs. Clinton Secretary of State, Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq had notified their higher ups, stationed in Pakistan, that their cause was lost in Iraq and that there was no point sending more men there.

Hosni Mubarak was in charge in Egypt. He posed no threat to American or Western interests in the Middle East or to Christians within Egypt or to Israel. But the Obama administration threw its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over and began terrorizing Christians in Egypt and promoting hostility to Israel.

In Libya next door, the Qaddafi regime had already given up its weapons of mass destruction, after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But President Obama's foreign policy, carried out by Secretary of State Clinton, got Qaddafi removed, after which Libya became a terrorist haven where an American ambassador was killed, for the first time in decades.

thanks for repeating what the rightwingnut hack said.

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

_______________________________________________

But, you said nothing about his opinion as expressed in the Original Post. It made sense to me without regard to who wrote it.

Can you refute it?

What about what he said?

Do you have anything for that?

Note: They can't attack his argument so they attack him. That's a typical leftwing propaganda technique.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thomas Sowell is a rightwing partisan hack devoid of credibility, and whose opinions are without merit.

Otherwise this is more evidence of the right's pathetic desperation.

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas Sowell is a rightwing partisan hack devoid of credibility, and whose opinions are without merit.

Otherwise this is more evidence of the right's pathetic desperation.

In other words, you are unable to dispute his argument as well.

Thanks for playing!

 

[MACAULAY]

Demanding that a Liberal address the Message, instead of just attacking the Messenger, is a real thread-killer.

 

[kiwiman127]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

_______________________________________________

But, you said nothing about his opinion as expressed in the Original Post. It made sense to me without regard to who wrote it.

Can you refute it?

What about what he said?

Do you have anything for that?

Note: They can't attack his argument so they attack him. That's a typical leftwing propaganda technique.

Hmmm, it seems to me that I also"attacked" Krugman, but BriPat completely ignores that fact and I did it twice, just like Sowell.
Secondly, my posts didn't attack, it was more like discounting both Krugman and Sowell's opinions as they are political hacks.
If you want to get sucked in by hyper-partisanship, that's your problem. And it is a problem. BriPat, every one here knows you are an unwavering political hack who marches to just one drummer.
In my occupational field, no one lasts too long by just utilizing just one opinion, never. That's the playing field successful businesses use to expand business and to continue to be successful, looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding the course they will take.

 

[2aguy]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

_______________________________________________

But, you said nothing about his opinion as expressed in the Original Post. It made sense to me without regard to who wrote it.

Can you refute it?

What about what he said?

Do you have anything for that?

Note: They can't attack his argument so they attack him. That's a typical leftwing propaganda technique.

Hmmm, it seems to me that I also"attacked" Krugman, but BriPat completely ignores that fact and I did it twice, just like Sowell.
Secondly, my posts didn't attack, it was more like discounting both Krugman and Sowell's opinions as they are political hacks.
If you want to get sucked in by hyper-partisanship, that's your problem. And it is a problem. BriPat, every one here knows you are an unwavering political hack who marches to just one drummer.
In my occupational field, no one lasts too long by just utilizing just one opinion, never. That's the playing field successful businesses use to expand business and to continue to be successful, looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding the course they will take.

I always love it when people like you accuse us of not looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding on a course they will take....when we choose one course over another that you either disagree with or want take both sides of to seem superior....for some reason.....I have been watching politics and the left and right divide for 30 years or more....and I have objectively decided that the left and what it stands for is destructive and foolish...having looked at many opinions by many different sides.....but thanks for playing....

 

[kiwiman127]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

_______________________________________________

But, you said nothing about his opinion as expressed in the Original Post. It made sense to me without regard to who wrote it.

Can you refute it?

What about what he said?

Do you have anything for that?

Note: They can't attack his argument so they attack him. That's a typical leftwing propaganda technique.

Hmmm, it seems to me that I also"attacked" Krugman, but BriPat completely ignores that fact and I did it twice, just like Sowell.
Secondly, my posts didn't attack, it was more like discounting both Krugman and Sowell's opinions as they are political hacks.
If you want to get sucked in by hyper-partisanship, that's your problem. And it is a problem. BriPat, every one here knows you are an unwavering political hack who marches to just one drummer.
In my occupational field, no one lasts too long by just utilizing just one opinion, never. That's the playing field successful businesses use to expand business and to continue to be successful, looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding the course they will take.

I always love it when people like you accuse us of not looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding on a course they will take....when we choose one course over another that you either disagree with or want take both sides of to seem superior....for some reason.....I have been watching politics and the left and right divide for 30 years or more....and I have objectively decided that the left and what it stands for is destructive and foolish...having looked at many opinions by many different sides.....but thanks for playing....

Both parties have migrated away from the center. It seems that almost every day this country faces a changing world. Different problems are not solved my a single-minded approach. Which is why I used the business model approach which is different than how government approach issues/problems. Businesses evolve, Washington/our government doesn't evolve as it is driven by just two trains of thought. This leads to fewer solutions and fewer approaches.
We have a polarization issue within our government which gets worse day by day. The term "do nothing Congress" has been around ever since the polarization stopped exploring and exchanging ideas for consideration. If businesses used the same approach, they would fail. There's a reason why congress (no matter who is/was in control), gets such poor marks.
This country is being led by two ideologies and neither one represents the majority of the populace. A majority of Americans are much more to the center than either ideology. More Americans identify themselves as moderates/centralist than ever before and they are, without a doubt the largest segment of the American public. I would guess the reason for that is because both ideologies have gotten more extreme and don't recognize the will of the people. The last election clearly showed the apathy of the American public directed towards both political parties. Having the lowest voter turnout since 1942 (which was while the world was at war), says a lot.
We have problems/issues buddy. While the ideologies squabble, the world passes us by.

 

[Stephanie]

hardly any of them In Congress has accomplish anything outstanding to be in their positions. What does it take to raise taxes, outlandish regulations on business and now US the citizens (like banning a certain SIZE cup for sodas, what kind light bulbs you can use, etc) and show up to listen to bunch of idiots in hoodies perform a show with their Hands up in their air..

We are done. We don't have elected Representatives we have MASTERS

 

[2aguy]

Thomas Sowell, the economist, he is the right's version of the left wing's Paul Krugman, the economist.
Both are highly partisan economists who post articles in right/left hyper-partisan news sources/blogs. They both write articles, who's design is to fire up their ideologue base.
Thusly, they aren't exactly being objective with their thoughts. I have always been under the impression, that objectivity trumps partisanship every time when it comes to intellectual honesty.

_______________________________________________

But, you said nothing about his opinion as expressed in the Original Post. It made sense to me without regard to who wrote it.

Can you refute it?

What about what he said?

Do you have anything for that?

Note: They can't attack his argument so they attack him. That's a typical leftwing propaganda technique.

Hmmm, it seems to me that I also"attacked" Krugman, but BriPat completely ignores that fact and I did it twice, just like Sowell.
Secondly, my posts didn't attack, it was more like discounting both Krugman and Sowell's opinions as they are political hacks.
If you want to get sucked in by hyper-partisanship, that's your problem. And it is a problem. BriPat, every one here knows you are an unwavering political hack who marches to just one drummer.
In my occupational field, no one lasts too long by just utilizing just one opinion, never. That's the playing field successful businesses use to expand business and to continue to be successful, looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding the course they will take.

I always love it when people like you accuse us of not looking at a variety of ideas objectively and then deciding on a course they will take....when we choose one course over another that you either disagree with or want take both sides of to seem superior....for some reason.....I have been watching politics and the left and right divide for 30 years or more....and I have objectively decided that the left and what it stands for is destructive and foolish...having looked at many opinions by many different sides.....but thanks for playing....

Both parties have migrated away from the center. It seems that almost every day this country faces a changing world. Different problems are not solved my a single-minded approach. Which is why I used the business model approach which is different than how government approach issues/problems. Businesses evolve, Washington/our government doesn't evolve as it is driven by just two trains of thought. This leads to fewer solutions and fewer approaches.
We have a polarization issue within our government which gets worse day by day. The term "do nothing Congress" has been around ever since the polarization stopped exploring and exchanging ideas for consideration. If businesses used the same approach, they would fail. There's a reason why congress (no matter who is/was in control), gets such poor marks.
This country is being led by two ideologies and neither one represents the majority of the populace. A majority of Americans are much more to the center than either ideology. More Americans identify themselves as moderates/centralist than ever before and they are, without a doubt the largest segment of the American public. I would guess the reason for that is because both ideologies have gotten more extreme and don't recognize the will of the people. The last election clearly showed the apathy of the American public directed towards both political parties. Having the lowest voter turnout since 1942 (which was while the world was at war), says a lot.
We have problems/issues buddy. While the ideologies squabble, the world passes us by.

No, most identify as "moderate" because it sounds better when they answer a poll question.....and how do you see the Republican landslide of the congressional elections as "apathy?" And if people aren't willing to study the issues enough to vote then I don't really care if they stay home....

Most people don't understand the deeper issues involved in the life of this country.....