Date: Nov 9, 2012 7:27 PM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Obama's win - good or bad for the US/the world?

Yet again, you prove me right: You have nothing useful to offer. Your
"philosophical musings" are utterly useless and meaningless to, for
instance, homeless people who are suffering *right now* because of
lack of government that is paid for: Lack of proper food, proper
shelter, proper health care provided by government to those who need
it, which has to be paid for. Only that which you condemn - government
action that is paid for, where this mathematical economics you condemn
provides the road map for its financing - can save those who need
saving in this regard. (You think private charity can do it? Fact: It
never has met more than a few percentage points of this need, and this
is because it cannot meet any more than a few percentage points of
this need. You do not believe this? Then try to prove otherwise - and
I will destroy your attempted proof with the mathematical facts that
you don't know because of your choice to deny the science of
mathematical economics.)

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You proved me right. You did not actually answer a single question I
>> actually put to you in any useful way. That is, all your answers were
>> just a beating around the bush.
>>

>
> Who said it's your job to interrogate me and that my job is to answer
> ill-conceived yes/no questions of ignoramus vintage? I'm not a
> president and you're not a journalist at my press conference. I don't
> have to answer any of your questions if they don't interest me.
>
> All I'm saying is your sanguine faith / superstition in "mathematical
> economics" is not allowing you to think clearly and intelligently
> about providing health services to a needy world.
>
> In contrast to what I'm doing, which is actually quite substantive
> compared to anything you've written in this thread so far.
>
> I'm sketching real future prospects whereas you're talking about
> numbers and money, like some DC-based cube farm policy wonk.
>
> Between the two of us, I think I'm doing the useful work of
> brainstorming a future, whereas you're parroting the way most USAers
> think and talk: weak in STEM, close to incoherent about the future.
>
> Kirby