There was too much text for one post, literally.
You agree with what you think is correct. That doesn't make it correct. You keep telling me I hate the United States. Like I said, I don't hate the United States. I do hate the corruption Capitalism has brought to the country. That's not a secret. I see the world through two eyes, just like everyone else. I look at corruption and see greed. I look at the poor and homeless and see the needy. You're the one saying I think laziness is comparable to neediness. You're the one saying I think success and greed are comparable. You're changing the argument again, because I've proved you wrong. I'm done arguing with you after this post. Anyone reading the topic with any kind of logic and common sense know that I'm right. You need to learn the English language, by the way. You're not looking for the word patently. You're looking for blatantly. I've seen you use the word in another topic but chose not to say anything. I don't think I've "shown you" in the topic. I think I've proved you completely wrong. And I have.
These aren't tactics. I'm analyzing every one of your posts and explaining to you how you're wrong. You provided the link before I even posted. My first post on this subject was telling you that the one link you posted wasn't good enough. You didn't "bait" me with anything. You're not intuitive, and you had no idea I was going to post. I didn't ask for "a link." I asked for "credible sources". I googled, "fdr prolonged depression". The first and second hits were the article you posted, and an article discussing the article you posted, respectively. The third hit was Wikipedia's New Deal page, in which it discussed how historians and economists see FDR's policies in regards to the Great Depression. You can say I "googled for anything", but I googled the most unbiased combination of those words I could. If anything, one could argue that it was biased FOR your argument.
I didn't say the article didn't exist. I said you had no proof that the article was right. You told me that going to Google would prove me wrong. I wasn't trying to discredit any of your links. I think I'm getting deja vu. This is your argument over and over and over again. I didn't Google something different. I linked to a publication that is not free, then I linked to two things you CAN see. Why aren't you talking about those?
Here you go again with this "allegedly" bullsh
it. If you don't believe me, Google it. You'll find it somewhere.
Your argument is rooted in the interpretation of one policy's effect on a nationwide depression. I've posted several links discussing the Great Depression at length. I've put you down because you need to be put down. You're stupid. You really are.
My point was that I was not defending Proximity. What you quoted was one sentence in one paragraph of one post. You knew what I was saying other than that sentence, so instead of quoting the rest of the paragraph and telling me I'm wrong, you chose to make fun of a mistake.
Honestly, this is pathetic. We agree on the fact that freedom is a good thing. We agree that goods and services should be publicly owned.
I gave you the proof in the form of three links.
Fortunately, I don't have to post 5 links from 5 different universities. I posted a survey that contained the opinion of almost 200 historical economists. I asked you for credible sources, and assumed the only way to do that was with links from different universities. I found a way to validate everything I've said with one link.
They're littered throughout my posts. They're there. I don't have the time to read through everything I've said to tell you what you already know and are too stubborn to accept.
No, you've decided to believe I'm lying rather than believe that Wikipedia has any real facts.
Are you sure you want to thank me just yet?
This doesn't prove you right. It says that FDR's policies weren't abundantly helpful like he would have liked them to be. Regardless, it also says that the policies in the quote had a relatively small effect on the economy. It proves neither you nor anyone else right.
He wrote an article on a website. He didn't make the website. He also referred to something from the Boston Globe:
The New Deal and right-wing revisionism - The Boston Globe
And he referred to the same thing you did from UCLA, so that everyone reading his article can see what he's talking about.
Then he referred to the actual research memo from the two economists, so the readers can formulate their own opinion.
He refers to the consensus because it's a fact that has been validated for decades by thousands of economists and historians. The only reason the New Deal is being discussed again at all is because of these two economists who went against the grain in a right-wing attempt to confuse people.
You shouldn't think that just because they wrote complex formulas that those formulas are fact. Math can be very deceiving(I should know; I'm a chemical engineering major).
