I don't have time . . .

. . . for this.

First, cry behind my computer? And Titus schooling me badboy? Uh huh, I see. So let me ask you - how's the view from the sidelines every time the other 3 of us get more then 2 inches deep into a real intellectual debate? I realize we tend to use compound sentences and multi syllable words, but anytime you want to participate in the infinite details of something as massively complex and time consuming as the New Deal, rather then engage in drive by Chihuahua-like barking via the occasional 2 paragraph post, be my guest.

Secondly, I feel no need to continue on with New Deal debate. Not because I "know" I'm right and there is no need to hear the opposing view, but rather because of one of Titus's statements prior to the Bernacke post, and a comment Jambo made today. Allow me to explain . . .

See - I've accepted Titus's GDP numbers, etc. I even explained how the scenario seems as if New Deal debate comes down to an individual's definition of economic "success." And even though I cited provable numbers; cited my own researched testimony; and quoted mainstream historians, Titus declared, after all of that, that I "patently refused to prove my case", and suggested that the core of my argument was nothing more then my declaring Kensyian Economics to be "liberal tripe" (a phrase I don't even use, I might add). That tells me something very valuable. He has concluded that no reasonable person can evaluate the numbers from 33' to 39' and come to the conclusion that New Deal was a net failure. Even though I can recognize due to GDP numbers and individual program success such as the TVA, that a reasonable person can conclude it to be a success, he will under no circumstances afford my New Deal opposition that same latitude. So, as there is no room in Titus's mind for my argument to be considered "reasonable" I choose not to waste my time with an issue he is as immovable on as Catholicism. His "belief" in New Deal has been established in much the same fashion as one embraces a religion (in my opinion), thus rationality within that confine can come to be redefined, to fit the boundaries of that belief. And as I would never attempt to convert he to Mormonism, I consider the entire premise of a New Deal debate with him, mute.

To Jambo's comment. It dovetails with my assessment of the Titus New Deal mindset (read: immovable and unaccepting of the contrary point of view as even having the potential to be "reasonable"). I text Jambo today, urging him to view the new live Glenn Beck program on FOX starting at 2pm West Coast time, and he obliges. Soon after he texts me to say: "no wonder you fight New Deal, listening to these to water headed morons . . ." (they had just labeled New Deal a net failure as a side commentary on Obama's spending bill). Now, while I am not exactly sure what "water headed" is, I got his basic point. In addition, he noted that he accepts both New Deal's success and failures rather then assuming "no good can come from a Dem president." This clearly suggests that, much like Titus, he assumes my entire argument to be ideological, partisan, and worse - ripped off from a TV talking head.

*sigh*

He has also, apparently, not accepted my numbers; quotations; and historical sources, and decided to fit my entire, multi faceted argument into a neat little box and label the outside: "PARTISAN." Again, the very thought of a reasonable person reaching the conclusion I have on New Deal is given no weight whatsoever.

After all of my posts, with a myriad of real numbers, sources, testimony etc, he, at this late date, STILL considers my argument TV talking head ripped off-partisan-revisionist-irrational slander. He (along with Titus) has decided that for anyone to even offer up the conclusion that New Deal was a net failure is to immediately enter into an irrationality equivalent to Holocaust denying or 9/11 conspiracies. Don't get me wrong, I needn't the 2 of you to agree with me, but to ignore all my researched posts - quite literally as if they never existed - and chalk up my opposition to partisan banter is to suspend reality, and a gross slight to my person (badboy I haven't the time fully to explain, but basically that means they insulted me).

That's all fine. But I pity this mind set. It closes off the possibility of a real debate - as most religious (political) dogma, once embraced, do (see: global warming devotees).

As I said . . . I don't have time for that.