In article ,
"Clave" wrote:

"Gary Forbis" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 5:47 pm, "Clave"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

...

These new emerging findings are blowing common economic thought out of
the water. People are not rational and do not pursue their best
interests. They can be and are manipulated against their own economic
interests.

Case in point, poor people who vote Republican.

I don't consider that a free lunch. The poor pay
heavily for their acts in voting Republican.
================================================== ================

His point was that it's the people paying attention to and manipulating the
predictably irrational who are in line for the free lunch.

That's the Democrap's you clowns with the promise of the free lunch
through the redistribution of wealth. The Obominator is your man on the
job.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On May 15, 9:12*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





*"Clave" wrote:
"Gary Forbis" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 5:47 pm, "Clave"
wrote:
wrote in message

.. .

...

These new emerging findings are blowing common economic thought out of
the water. People are not rational and do not pursue their best
interests. They can be and are manipulated against their own economic
interests.

Case in point, poor people who vote Republican.

I don't consider that a free lunch. *The poor pay
heavily for their acts in voting Republican.
================================================== ================

His point was that it's the people paying attention to and manipulating the
predictably irrational who are in line for the free lunch.

That's the Democrap's you clowns with the promise of the free lunch
through the redistribution of wealth. The Obominator is your man on the
job.

Recovery of stollen goods is also "redistribution of wealth".
None the less his point wasn't about promises but actions.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Just because you
didn't pay for it doesn't mean it was free. Milton's use of
the adage was different than mine. Milton's use was more
along the lines that if one is offered something for free one
should check the fine print. Mine is to observe shifted
costs.

I don't support the notion of a right to healthcare but I
think preventitive healthcare is cheaper than emergency
care that could have been prevented and if we are going
to pay for emergency care that could have been prevented
then we should reduce our costs by preventing the problem
in the first place.

"Gary Forbis" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 9:12 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





"Clave" wrote:
"Gary Forbis" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 5:47 pm, "Clave"
wrote:
wrote in message

.. .

...

These new emerging findings are blowing common economic thought out
of
the water. People are not rational and do not pursue their best
interests. They can be and are manipulated against their own
economic
interests.

Case in point, poor people who vote Republican.

I don't consider that a free lunch. The poor pay
heavily for their acts in voting Republican.
================================================== ================

His point was that it's the people paying attention to and manipulating
the
predictably irrational who are in line for the free lunch.

That's the Democrap's you clowns with the promise of the free lunch
through the redistribution of wealth. The Obominator is your man on the
job.

Recovery of stollen goods is also "redistribution of wealth".
None the less his point wasn't about promises but actions.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Just because you
didn't pay for it doesn't mean it was free. Milton's use of
the adage was different than mine. Milton's use was more
along the lines that if one is offered something for free one
should check the fine print. Mine is to observe shifted
costs.
================================================== ==================

Right -- words mean what you want them to mean, no more and no less.

I don't know which of the two of you is more incoherent.

Jim

On May 16, 8:48*am, wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis

wrote:

There's no such thing as a free lunch. *Just because you
didn't pay for it doesn't mean it was free. *Milton's use of
the adage was different than mine. *Milton's use was more
along the lines that if one is offered something for free one
should check the fine print. *Mine is to observe shifted
costs.

Read the books. They both take this issue and expression head on.
I know you don't mind challenging your dogma a bit.

If the price is Free you can be sure a Slave paid for it.

On May 16, 1:33*pm, wrote:
On May 16, 8:48*am, wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis

wrote:

There's no such thing as a free lunch. *Just because you
didn't pay for it doesn't mean it was free. *Milton's use of
the adage was different than mine. *Milton's use was more
along the lines that if one is offered something for free one
should check the fine print. *Mine is to observe shifted
costs.

Read the books. They both take this issue and expression head on.
I know you don't mind challenging your dogma a bit.

If the price is Free you can be sure a Slave paid for it.

you just defined free market economics.

On May 16, 1:38*pm, wrote:

If the price is Free you can be sure a Slave paid for it.

*you just defined free market economics.


You just showcased your ignoramus Public School education.

The poster defined Socialist/Communist economics - Serf of the State.

On May 16, 3:30*pm, wrote:
On May 16, 1:38*pm, wrote:



If the price is Free you can be sure a Slave paid for it.

*you just defined free market economics.

You just showcased your ignoramus Public School education.

The poster defined Socialist/Communist economics - Serf of the State.

you mean when western capitalists sign free trade agreements with
communist china, and allow the communists to own 51% of the factory.
and where the western capitalists turn over all of their manufacturing
secrets, and proprietary property to take advantage of slave/sweatshop
labor, and then import those communists/socialists products into the
u.s.a., that then undercuts american production, and drives america
deep into debt for their own short term gain.
is that the serf state you are speaking of, because they are free to
do so

wrote:
On May 16, 3:30 pm, wrote:
On May 16, 1:38 pm, wrote:



If the price is Free you can be sure a Slave paid for it.
you just defined free market economics.
You just showcased your ignoramus Public School education.

The poster defined Socialist/Communist economics - Serf of the State.

you mean when western capitalists sign free trade agreements with
communist china, and allow the communists to own 51% of the factory.
and where the western capitalists turn over all of their manufacturing
secrets, and proprietary property to take advantage of slave/sweatshop
labor, and then import those communists/socialists products into the
u.s.a., that then undercuts american production, and drives america
deep into debt for their own short term gain.
is that the serf state you are speaking of, because they are free to
do so

http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/mini....031&from= rma

Telamon wrote:


That's the Democrap's you clowns with the promise of the free lunch
through the redistribution of wealth. The Obominator is your man on the
job.


Then why do the red states get more tax money per capita than the blue
states? Defense spending is redistribution too.

On May 16, 7:30*am, dave wrote:
Telamon wrote:

That's the Democrap's you clowns with the promise of the free lunch
through the redistribution of wealth. The Obominator is your man on the
job.

Then why do the red states get more tax money per capita than the blue
states? *Defense spending is redistribution too.

Because employees in Blue States pay more State and local taxes thus
paying less Federal taxes. Therefor, Blue States receive less Fedaral
Tax money.
Ask your boss, Mrs. Huffington Post, to spin that one for your
response.