It backfired??? I heard that President Obama is WAY ahead with female voters. "Manufactured out of whole cloth"? Yeah, right. No one's buying that shit Rusty.
And how the heck can you post on this issue and NOT state what your opinion on the subject is Will?
FYI it's shooting metaphors that we aren't supposed to be using. "War" metaphors are still in use by Republicans. I'm watching Rachel Maddow right now and she just mentioned Obama's "War on Coal" from the Republican website.
Yet again Will attacks Democrats, and on an issue where is should be really easy to see who this war is "backfiring" on. (Hint: it's the Republicans). I guess that's what "Moderates" do (agree mostly with Republicans).
My point, wd, is that the left is always bitching and moaning about the inflammatory and militaristic language used by the right and then they dust off this little sucker. Am I personally offended by it? Puh, I could give a rat's ass what either of these 2 rump organizations do. And I DO hammer conservatives; Limbaugh, Gingrich, Santorum, Trump, Haley Barbour. You just choose to ignore those because you're a fucking little boot-licking purist who thinks that the far left scum can do no wrong.
You may want to look at a few other polls WD,in more then a few Romney is equal to or leading the incumbent.Now that the primary is over americans are realizing the emperor has no clothes and no record to run on.
Will: ...you're a fucking little boot-licking purist who thinks that the far left scum can do no wrong.
This characterization of my political beliefs is a lie... and we know it is because any reasonable assessment of my positions reveals that I am in no way "a fucking little boot-licking purist who thinks that the far left scum can do no wrong".
If you can name anyone on the "far left" that qualifies as "scum" and can produce evidence that they are scum, I would not defend them. I don't defend scum.
Seems to me that anyone who you characterize as "far left" is "scum" simply by virtue of them being "far left".
Also, regarding those Fox Nooz polls Rusty wants me to look at... I think I'll pass.
I'm going to honest with you, Russ. I don't have a lot of faith in either one of these fellows (Romney and Obama), and with the Tea Party Caucus holding Mr. Boehner (who I really think would LIKE to deal) hostage like they are, I don't have a whole hell of lot of faith in the Congress, either. Oh well, maybe I WILL vote for Mr. Bloomberg after all - just to piss everybody off.
Will: ...maybe I WILL vote for Mr. Bloomberg after all - just to piss everybody off.
Go ahead. I dare you. It looks like Connecticut (if that is really where you live) is going to go for Obama anyway. This state has gone Democratic in the past 5 presidential elections.
I question you actually living there because you spelled the name of the state wrong in your Blogger profile.
I just find it a bit disingenuous that the Obama campaign staff realizes it cannot run on its record so chooses to manufacture a war on women,class warfare,the Buffet Rule,shoot at Romneys wife yet fails to mention anything about the past three years.
They think the voting public is dumb enough to fall for that hope and change bullshit again.
They are running a campaign trying to make believe Obama is a candidate...not the incumbent.
Rusty said: "I just find it a bit disingenuous that the Obama campaign staff realizes it cannot run on its record so chooses to manufacture a war on women,class warfare,the Buffet Rule,shoot at Romneys wife yet fails to mention anything about the past three years."
The LAST thing ObamaCo wants voters to ask this November is "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
dmarks: The LAST thing ObamaCo wants voters to ask this November is "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
They're only worried about the dumb voters asking that... the ones who think ONE president can turn around an economy devastated by the last guy in the position... an incompetent boob who ran the country into the ground.
The smart voters will realize that, although Obama is nowhere near the progressive we need, he's an infinitely better choice then the other guy. The other guy wants to reverse course; at least with Obama we're moving forward.
And BEFORE you label me "arrogant", dmarks (for calling some voters dumb), how about your arrogant question? The implied answer is obviously "no" (otherwise it wouldn't be the "last thing" "ObamaCo" wanted people asking themselves).
So what does that mean if I disagree with the sage dmarks and think the answer is yes? The logical conclusion is that it makes me look bad, perhaps even dumb.
"They're only worried about the dumb voters asking that... the ones who think ONE president can turn around an economy devastated by the last guy in the position"
How about one President who even tries? We didn't get that. 'Jobs' has always been off his radar. His stimulus went to pay off buddies. And as a result of his policies, the debt went up 50% and unemployment went up 20%.
Obama is not to blame for the debt and unemployment passed to him by Bush, but he is to blame for making it much worse. He owns that entirely.
No, you didn't come across as arrogant. Nothing like the boneheaded insult (with no evidence) about how RN is "duped"
dmarks: 'Jobs' has always been off his radar. His stimulus went to pay off buddies. And as a result of his policies, the debt went up 50% and unemployment went up 20%.
Jobs isn't on the radar of the Congressional Republicans. That's why they filibuster REAL jobs bills in the Senate and COMPLETELY ignore them in the Republican controlled House (they were passing jobs bills like crazy when Nancy Pelosi was speaker).
The stimulus created jobs. Congressional Republicans know it, that's why they publicly denounce the stimulus while writing letters asking for money for their districts.
FactCheck.org: Did the Stimulus Create Jobs?. Yes, the stimulus legislation increased employment, despite false Republican claims to the contrary.
The debt continues to rise because Republicans REFUSE to raise taxes. They're doing everything in their power to sabotage a recovery.
It is true. Unemployment is declining. The stimulus worked.
The unemployment rate continued to rise in the first few months after the stimulus was passed because it took time for the stimulus to have an effect (these things aren't immediate). It's now declining and has been for some time.
Look at the unemployment under bush on the graph compared to the unemployment under Obama. The numbers may be "cooked" in that people who have given up looking aren't counted any longer, but the way the calculations are done have not changed from bush to Obama.
Under bush unemployment went up, and continued to do so under Obama until the stimulus started working. Now the numbers are going down. The graph shows that to be true.
If you're talking about some other kind of "cooking" (one that renders what the chart shows to be a complete lie), I challenge you to prove it. You won't be able to.
Finally, the government steals no money. It collects taxes, which is it's right (ever heard of the Social Contract?). dmarks is the one who wants to steal. He wants services for nothing. In any case, taxes are at an all time low.
I don't take my marching orders from you Will. Anyway, I thought John Myste was talking about leaving the US. The internet is accessible from other countries. Did you not know this?
WD: "f you're talking about some other kind of "cooking"
Yes. I'm talking about intentionally dishonest misrepresentation such as the "panty graph". Anything other than look at the actual unemployment rate. Or the bogus numbers put forth by the Obama Administration which leave out discouraged people who stopped looking for work.
The "stimulus" increased unemployment by diverting money to well-off union thugs. Unions also used this federal money to campaign to push for more jobs being offshored and lost. If Obama would have done something effective, like cut taxes on employers, institute national "right to work", and get rid of the over regulation, there would have been an immediate drop in unemployment.
"Finally, the government steals no money. It collects taxes"
Which is forcibly taking money from its actual owners.
"dmarks is the one who wants to steal."
You are lying.
"He wants services for nothing."
Name ONE instance where I have asked for this. You can't. I predict there will be crickets. A perfect example not of arrogance, but of you making up stuff because it sounds good whether or not it is true.
"In any case, taxes are at an all time low."
Actually, they are at an all-time high. This is why you get laughed at so much. You often say the opposite of what is true.
dmarks: Or the bogus numbers put forth by the Obama Administration which leave out discouraged people who stopped looking for work.
The Obama Administration calculates unemployment the same as the previous administration. Thus comparing unemployment figures from the two is very valid. The graph I previously linked to shows unemployment going down after the stimulus began taking effect..
dmarks: If Obama would have done something effective, like cut taxes on employers, institute national "right to work", and get rid of the over regulation, there would have been an immediate drop in unemployment.
So, you're calling for President Obama to switch parties and become a Republican? A sitting president has never switched parties dmarks. In any case, those are all bad ideas that would NOT decrease unemployment (they would make it worse). Also these are not things he could do by executive order. The Democrats would oppose them. And there is no "over regulation".
dmarks: Name ONE instance where I have asked for [government services for nothing]. You can't. I predict there will be crickets.
As usual dmarks, you predict wrong. You continually say taxes are too high. Taxes pay for government services (among other things).
dmarks: Actually, [taxes] are at an all-time high. ... mere seconds of research proved it wrong.
How is this even possible? The bush tax cuts are still in place. The payroll tax holiday is still in effect. I can do zero seconds of research and prove you wrong.
Also, a quick Google search reveals that we're paying the LOWEST TAXES IN MORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY. Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, says, "the idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts".
dmarks: This is why you get laughed at so much.
On this blog. Because it is run by a Conservative and many of the people who comment are Conservatives. You're primarily interested in the truth as viewed trough a conservative lens... you laugh when the REAL truth is revealed because your minds simply cannot accept it.
Just for the record, John, I don't want you to leave. Hell, I was just about to offer Heathen Republican wd IN EXCHANGE FOR YOU.
I would LOVE WD to visit Heathen's site often. I think they would be a good match for each other because of their debating styles.
WD would do better to leave emotion out of it, as Heathen would pounce on that. However, if WD could not every say anything that attacks Heathen's character and never say anything that shows anger, it would be beautiful.
Despite the rumors, Will, you are a moderate (just as I am a liberal, despite the rumors). A moderate against a far left liberal is not the same game as a hard right conservative against a hard left liberal. Heathen's big thing is charts and stats. I have no patience for that in general, as I know if I am willing to do the work, I can find an offsetting chart or stat. Saying “chart X when Bush was in office proves that Bush caused condition Y,” even if true, is fallacious, as there are too many variables. To combat such arguments, you simply find numbers that correlate other, equally relevant factors. I don’t mind rhetorical games, if they are acknowledged as such, but I don’t like games where one side is using fallacious he considers rational and to refute it I have to do tons of obvious work he could have done himself.
Dervish, I think, can tolerate Heathen’s style better than I can. For one thing, he is more willing to do the work. For another thing, he has more data in conniving little head.
I try to coax Heathen into arguing what he believes for the reason he believes it, instead of trying to justify his belief with a chart. I have pointed him to other rebutting charts in the past, and he just dismisses them with no real response, which is actually OK because I don't want to Google and find or construct more charts. I consider it disingenuous and boring.
At one point, when I had a little more time, I was considering getting a four man structured debate going, with two far left liberals against two far right conservatives.
The idea would be that there would be ground rules. Hopefully each side would acknowledge them and would try to remove obvious fallacies and obvious ad hominem arguments from the debate.
I was not going to be on the team. On the liberal side I wanted Burr Deming on the Team, and Dervish on the team. On the conservative side, I wanted Dervish as the Heathen offset and I needed someone who argues philosophically (as opposed to someone who argues more technically, which is how I classify Dervish and Heathen). I could not really find a Conservative who made what I consider sound philosophical arguments for the majority of their positions. I do believe such a conservative is out there. I think I can make sound, though ultimately misguided, philosophical conservative arguments to support conservative positions (I used to be mostly a conservative back in the day).
Here were my problems: 1. Those I wanted on the team did not seem willing, with the possible exception of Heathen. 2. I could not find an appropriate conservative to make the rational arguments, or arguments where one truly argues what he believe for the reason he believes it, as opposed to the legalistic arguments where one argues as a retained attorney would. I needed all four personas to make this idea work.
So, it didn’t happen. The moral of the story, I suppose, is this: thought Dervish has huge character flaws in my opinion (huge ones: too partisan, too aggressive, too personal), I wanted him on my team.
... And by the way, I do argue with Will when I am motivated to do so, as can be seen here.. However, I respect a lot of his perspectives even when I don't agree with them.
I do not seem him as a conservative and I do not seem him as extreme.
Thank you John. I could make a list of the dozen or so plus liberal positions (INCLUDING a belief that the top tax rates go back to the Clinton era of 39.6% - as part of an overall deficit reduction package) that I have and enumerate that I haven't voted Republican for President since Bush 1 in '88 but wd doesn't generally incorporate reality into these odd proclamations of his.......And a lot depends on what your definition of "conservative" is. For instance, wd thinks that my support for Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici constitutes conservatism - this, despite the fact that Paul Ryan voted against Bowles-Simpson and Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin both voted FOR IT!!!! I mean, how do you even reason with somebody like this?
John Myste: just as I am a liberal, despite the rumors [to the contrary]
Why are there rumors? There must be a reason.
Will: ...despite the fact that Paul Ryan voted against Bowles-Simpson and Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin both voted FOR IT!!!!
Jan Schakowsky voted "no". She said she opposed the plan because she believes the deficit can be reduced without "further eroding the middle class in America".
I don't know why Conrad and Durbin voted to erode the middle class. That doesn't make the idea not Conservative. Conservatives favor eroding the middle class in order to enrich the already wealthy. Paul Ryan voted "no" because the plan didn't erode the middle class enough!
John, I don't agree with Jan Schakowsky's characterization that it would further erode the Middle Class. a) It raises gobs of revenue by closing tax expenditures that predominantly benefit the wealthy and b) it significantly bends the cost curve on entitlements, thereby preserving them (yes, it does raise the retirement age but it also has some means-testing that again disproportionately huts the wealthy). I'm not as certain as to what it does on defense spending, but if it does make some significant cuts there, too, all the better.
John Myste: just as I am a liberal, despite the rumors [to the contrary]
Dervish: Why are there rumors? There must be a reason.
Yes, often if I use complete reason and logic, if it does not completely validate a liberal claim, then the liberal claims I am a conservative. It is a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I have to agree, in complete solidarity, with fallacious reasoning if the reasoning draws the same liberal conclusions I draw, else I am not a true liberal. Additionally, if liberals typically have 100 beliefs, and I reject the ten unreasonable ones, then, since I did not blindly adhere to the playbook, I am a liberal. That is the justification. So irrational people accuse me of being a conservative unless I validate their irrational logic. Simply disagreeing with an argument that a liberal, any liberal, makes, makes me a conservative. That is the reasoning.
Read the following and tell me if you would think it describes a conservative or a liberal.
I support:
Universal Healthcare Gay Marriage Government that is as big as is needed to make the country the best it can be Federalism. A living constitution. Abortion, though I do think it is the taking of a human life. Progressive vs Flat Taxation Gun Control Animal Rights Education Medicare Social Security Welfare Separation of Church and State FDA Regulations EPA regulations Campaign Finance Regulations Gays in the Military, Women in the Military, Blacks in the Military State Casinos and Gambling. Immigrant Rights and the Dream Act Stem Cell Research Handling of Global Warming Entitlements
I am against:
The Patriot Act Capital Punishment Excise Taxes and "Vice" Taxes Privatizing Medicare. Making Excessive War Doctrine of Original Intent or worship of the Founders The concept that this nation should be a Christian Nation. Supply Side Economics
I don't believe in adhering to a "playbook". I don't think that's the reason for these "rumors".
I completely understand. So, read the list I posted above and please tell me if you would classify that guy as a liberal, a moderate or a conservative.
don't believe in adhering to a "playbook". I don't think that's the reason for these "rumors".
And since you discount the answer I gave, I must assume you have more data than I on the topic. Can you please provide the additional data that gives you your enhanced opinion of the cause of these "rumors?" I did provide the data that makes me mistake myself for a liberal, after all, so it is only fair.
John Myste: Can you please provide the additional data that gives you your enhanced opinion of the cause of these "rumors?"
You are correct in assuming that I have more data then you on the subject. The additional data I have that gives me my enhanced opinion is that I have tracked down and interviewed every single self-professed Liberal that has ever accused you of being a conservative (although for confidentially reason I cannot reveal any names).
Under intense questioning every one of these individuals eventually conceded that you are a Liberal, but that you're a snoody one. They resented the fact that you present yourself as a "reasonable Liberal". A "reasonable liberal" on a mission to make other Liberals look bad (for some inexplicable reason).
Although some of the interviewees said you were the "most conservative Liberal" they had ever encountered.
Also, according to the playbook, you're wrong on the following:
[1] Abortion. It is not the taking of a human life. How could you support it if it were? What kind of monster are you?
[2] Your opposition to Excise Taxes and "Vice" Taxes. Why? I don't get this one.
Perhaps you're just a Democrat and not a Liberal? Some of the interviewees had that opinion (this is a correction to my previous comment in which I said all the people I interviewed conceded that you were a liberal. They actually said "maybe" about you being a Liberal. Most thought you fell short of being considered a genuine Liberal.
How 'bout this, John is an idiosyncratic somewhat left of center individual who's open-minded, loves to play devil's advocacy, and who tries to find common ground with folks? Yeah? No?
I am impressed that you found all the liberals. The reason I am "snoody" toward them, which is kind of like being snooty before you graduate, is that I do not like being identified with fallacious logic, even though I love being identified as a liberal. The only way to achieve this is to correct absurd arguments and advance decent ones. I hope the liberals you encountered understand this.
As for my stance on abortion, I agree that it is logical and reasonable, so does not follow the liberal playbook. However, in the end, I support abortion, so I should get partial credit.
As for sin taxes especially, they primarily oppress the poor, which is why I don't like them. A smoker will smoke, even if he does not eat. A sin tax is a much larger percentage of the income of a poor person, who ironically, is also more likely to engage in the "sin."
Taxes should not be discriminatory, but especially so when it favors the poor.
I'll accept your answer on sin taxes, but not your answer on abortion. I do not find it "logical and reasonable" to accept abortion if you also think it is the taking of a human life.
What is your problem with excise taxes?
And Will, you don't know how I view "partial credit", and if I ever give it. You're guessing. I'll give it to him on his answer to the abortion question. I still don't understand it though.
I'll also accept your description of John Myste's political ideology. But I wouldn't say being "somewhat left of center" necessarily makes someone a Liberal.
I'll accept your answer on sin taxes, but not your answer on abortion. I do not find it "logical and reasonable" to accept abortion if you also think it is the taking of a human life.
“Human” is a label we invented to understand certain real bipedal beings. I do not then try to figure out right from wrong based on the label. There are two or more people involved, the fetus, the mother, perhaps others, all with implied rights.
What is your problem with excise taxes?
I am nowhere as nearly against them as I am sin taxes. My gripe is with any tax discrimination that can too easily be focused to indirectly weigh against a certain group, not openly, but for non-transparent reasons. We should tax progressively and uniformly.
I'll also accept your description of John Myste's political ideology. But I wouldn't say being "somewhat left of center" necessarily makes someone a Liberal.
I am way left of center and yet I feel no loyalty to extreme arguments. In fact, identifying myself with them is embarrassing. I prefer to identify myself with conclusions only, and my reasons for getting there.
Let's assume that "snoodiness" equates to an arrogant air of superiority. If that is the definition, you are about as "snoody" as fellow can be, and I generally forgive you because of your other virtues.
I have no time or interest in pouring back over this site just to best you in the "snoodiness" debate.
Next time you do it, and direct toward me, I shall accommodate you. If you do it in a war with someone else, where my intervening would cause the appearance that I was taking a position against you, when in reality I am just identifying your "snoodiness," then you will have to wait.
54 comments:
It backfired??? I heard that President Obama is WAY ahead with female voters. "Manufactured out of whole cloth"? Yeah, right. No one's buying that shit Rusty.
And how the heck can you post on this issue and NOT state what your opinion on the subject is Will?
FYI it's shooting metaphors that we aren't supposed to be using. "War" metaphors are still in use by Republicans. I'm watching Rachel Maddow right now and she just mentioned Obama's "War on Coal" from the Republican website.
Yet again Will attacks Democrats, and on an issue where is should be really easy to see who this war is "backfiring" on. (Hint: it's the Republicans). I guess that's what "Moderates" do (agree mostly with Republicans).
My point, wd, is that the left is always bitching and moaning about the inflammatory and militaristic language used by the right and then they dust off this little sucker. Am I personally offended by it? Puh, I could give a rat's ass what either of these 2 rump organizations do. And I DO hammer conservatives; Limbaugh, Gingrich, Santorum, Trump, Haley Barbour. You just choose to ignore those because you're a fucking little boot-licking purist who thinks that the far left scum can do no wrong.
You may want to look at a few other polls WD,in more then a few Romney is equal to or leading the incumbent.Now that the primary is over americans are realizing the emperor has no clothes and no record to run on.
Will: ...you're a fucking little boot-licking purist who thinks that the far left scum can do no wrong.
This characterization of my political beliefs is a lie... and we know it is because any reasonable assessment of my positions reveals that I am in no way "a fucking little boot-licking purist who thinks that the far left scum can do no wrong".
If you can name anyone on the "far left" that qualifies as "scum" and can produce evidence that they are scum, I would not defend them. I don't defend scum.
Seems to me that anyone who you characterize as "far left" is "scum" simply by virtue of them being "far left".
Also, regarding those Fox Nooz polls Rusty wants me to look at... I think I'll pass.
I'm going to honest with you, Russ. I don't have a lot of faith in either one of these fellows (Romney and Obama), and with the Tea Party Caucus holding Mr. Boehner (who I really think would LIKE to deal) hostage like they are, I don't have a whole hell of lot of faith in the Congress, either. Oh well, maybe I WILL vote for Mr. Bloomberg after all - just to piss everybody off.
WD is getting his polling information from thinkprogress,a totally impartial source.
Not voting for Obama could easily be disastrous. Imagine a fully conservative Supreme Court. I will leave the country.
Will: ...maybe I WILL vote for Mr. Bloomberg after all - just to piss everybody off.
Go ahead. I dare you. It looks like Connecticut (if that is really where you live) is going to go for Obama anyway. This state has gone Democratic in the past 5 presidential elections.
I question you actually living there because you spelled the name of the state wrong in your Blogger profile.
I may tend to agree with your last comment Will.
I just find it a bit disingenuous that the Obama campaign staff realizes it cannot run on its record so chooses to manufacture a war on women,class warfare,the Buffet Rule,shoot at Romneys wife yet fails to mention anything about the past three years.
They think the voting public is dumb enough to fall for that hope and change bullshit again.
They are running a campaign trying to make believe Obama is a candidate...not the incumbent.
See ya John....if you need help moving let us know.
Yeah, wd, I left out the i. I fixed it, though.
Rusty,
Than you for your generous offer. I do think I will require some assistance.
Please free your schedule and let me know when is a good time for you, so I can coordinate.
Rusty said: "I just find it a bit disingenuous that the Obama campaign staff realizes it cannot run on its record so chooses to manufacture a war on women,class warfare,the Buffet Rule,shoot at Romneys wife yet fails to mention anything about the past three years."
The LAST thing ObamaCo wants voters to ask this November is "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
I know this is purely anecdotal, but most people I know are better off than they were four years ago.
dmarks: The LAST thing ObamaCo wants voters to ask this November is "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
They're only worried about the dumb voters asking that... the ones who think ONE president can turn around an economy devastated by the last guy in the position... an incompetent boob who ran the country into the ground.
The smart voters will realize that, although Obama is nowhere near the progressive we need, he's an infinitely better choice then the other guy. The other guy wants to reverse course; at least with Obama we're moving forward.
And BEFORE you label me "arrogant", dmarks (for calling some voters dumb), how about your arrogant question? The implied answer is obviously "no" (otherwise it wouldn't be the "last thing" "ObamaCo" wanted people asking themselves).
So what does that mean if I disagree with the sage dmarks and think the answer is yes? The logical conclusion is that it makes me look bad, perhaps even dumb.
"They're only worried about the dumb voters asking that... the ones who think ONE president can turn around an economy devastated by the last guy in the position"
How about one President who even tries? We didn't get that. 'Jobs' has always been off his radar. His stimulus went to pay off buddies. And as a result of his policies, the debt went up 50% and unemployment went up 20%.
Obama is not to blame for the debt and unemployment passed to him by Bush, but he is to blame for making it much worse. He owns that entirely.
No, you didn't come across as arrogant. Nothing like the boneheaded insult (with no evidence) about how RN is "duped"
dmarks: 'Jobs' has always been off his radar. His stimulus went to pay off buddies. And as a result of his policies, the debt went up 50% and unemployment went up 20%.
Jobs isn't on the radar of the Congressional Republicans. That's why they filibuster REAL jobs bills in the Senate and COMPLETELY ignore them in the Republican controlled House (they were passing jobs bills like crazy when Nancy Pelosi was speaker).
The stimulus created jobs. Congressional Republicans know it, that's why they publicly denounce the stimulus while writing letters asking for money for their districts.
FactCheck.org: Did the Stimulus Create Jobs?. Yes, the stimulus legislation increased employment, despite false Republican claims to the contrary.
The debt continues to rise because Republicans REFUSE to raise taxes. They're doing everything in their power to sabotage a recovery.
The Atlantic Wire: Even Conservatives Think Republicans Are Sabotaging the Economy to Hurt Obama.
The jobs trend under Obama is that unemployment is on the way DOWN. Check out this graph. You've been duped dmarks.
"The stimulus created jobs. Congressional Republicans know it,"
How can they know what is not true? The unemployment rate continued to climb during it.
"The debt continues to rise because Republicans REFUSE to raise taxes."
No, it is because the federal government spends too much. They already have plenty of tax money. There's no need to steal more from us.
As for the graph, I've seen that many times. The numbers are cooked. Check the percent of unemployed. That is where you see what is going on.
dmarks: How can they know what is not true?
It is true. Unemployment is declining. The stimulus worked.
The unemployment rate continued to rise in the first few months after the stimulus was passed because it took time for the stimulus to have an effect (these things aren't immediate). It's now declining and has been for some time.
Look at the unemployment under bush on the graph compared to the unemployment under Obama. The numbers may be "cooked" in that people who have given up looking aren't counted any longer, but the way the calculations are done have not changed from bush to Obama.
Under bush unemployment went up, and continued to do so under Obama until the stimulus started working. Now the numbers are going down. The graph shows that to be true.
If you're talking about some other kind of "cooking" (one that renders what the chart shows to be a complete lie), I challenge you to prove it. You won't be able to.
Finally, the government steals no money. It collects taxes, which is it's right (ever heard of the Social Contract?). dmarks is the one who wants to steal. He wants services for nothing. In any case, taxes are at an all time low.
Watching the cross currents. And LMAO at wd.
"Rational" Nation: Watching the cross currents. And LMAO at wd.
I speak only the truth. What's funny about that? Actually it's quite sad that some fail to realize it (the deluded ones).
Just for the record, John, I don't want you to leave. Hell, I was just about to offer Heathen Republican wd IN EXCHANGE FOR YOU.
I don't take my marching orders from you Will. Anyway, I thought John Myste was talking about leaving the US. The internet is accessible from other countries. Did you not know this?
I think that John Myste is not just good for the Internet, he's good for America!
So, Liberals are OK so long as they don't disagree with you to much?
You're the rigid ideologue, not me.
You seem pretty rigidly Conservative to me. But I don't see how your answer has anything to do with the question I asked.
WD: "f you're talking about some other kind of "cooking"
Yes. I'm talking about intentionally dishonest misrepresentation such as the "panty graph". Anything other than look at the actual unemployment rate. Or the bogus numbers put forth by the Obama Administration which leave out discouraged people who stopped looking for work.
The "stimulus" increased unemployment by diverting money to well-off union thugs. Unions also used this federal money to campaign to push for more jobs being offshored and lost. If Obama would have done something effective, like cut taxes on employers, institute national "right to work", and get rid of the over regulation, there would have been an immediate drop in unemployment.
"Finally, the government steals no money. It collects taxes"
Which is forcibly taking money from its actual owners.
"dmarks is the one who wants to steal."
You are lying.
"He wants services for nothing."
Name ONE instance where I have asked for this. You can't. I predict there will be crickets. A perfect example not of arrogance, but of you making up stuff because it sounds good whether or not it is true.
"In any case, taxes are at an all time low."
Actually, they are at an all-time high. This is why you get laughed at so much. You often say the opposite of what is true.
$2.5 trillion - 2012
$2.3 trillion = 2011
$2.2 trillion = 2010
...to name two years when it was lower than it is now. You told us a whopper here, and mere seconds of research proved it wrong.
Yeah right. Again LMAO. Deluded, you need look no further than YOUR mirror.
dmarks: Or the bogus numbers put forth by the Obama Administration which leave out discouraged people who stopped looking for work.
The Obama Administration calculates unemployment the same as the previous administration. Thus comparing unemployment figures from the two is very valid. The graph I previously linked to shows unemployment going down after the stimulus began taking effect..
dmarks: If Obama would have done something effective, like cut taxes on employers, institute national "right to work", and get rid of the over regulation, there would have been an immediate drop in unemployment.
So, you're calling for President Obama to switch parties and become a Republican? A sitting president has never switched parties dmarks. In any case, those are all bad ideas that would NOT decrease unemployment (they would make it worse). Also these are not things he could do by executive order. The Democrats would oppose them. And there is no "over regulation".
dmarks: Name ONE instance where I have asked for [government services for nothing]. You can't. I predict there will be crickets.
As usual dmarks, you predict wrong. You continually say taxes are too high. Taxes pay for government services (among other things).
dmarks: Actually, [taxes] are at an all-time high. ... mere seconds of research proved it wrong.
How is this even possible? The bush tax cuts are still in place. The payroll tax holiday is still in effect. I can do zero seconds of research and prove you wrong.
Also, a quick Google search reveals that we're paying the LOWEST TAXES IN MORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY. Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, says, "the idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts".
dmarks: This is why you get laughed at so much.
On this blog. Because it is run by a Conservative and many of the people who comment are Conservatives. You're primarily interested in the truth as viewed trough a conservative lens... you laugh when the REAL truth is revealed because your minds simply cannot accept it.
Just for the record, John, I don't want you to leave. Hell, I was just about to offer Heathen Republican wd IN EXCHANGE FOR YOU.
I would LOVE WD to visit Heathen's site often. I think they would be a good match for each other because of their debating styles.
WD would do better to leave emotion out of it, as Heathen would pounce on that. However, if WD could not every say anything that attacks Heathen's character and never say anything that shows anger, it would be beautiful.
Despite the rumors, Will, you are a moderate (just as I am a liberal, despite the rumors). A moderate against a far left liberal is not the same game as a hard right conservative against a hard left liberal. Heathen's big thing is charts and stats. I have no patience for that in general, as I know if I am willing to do the work, I can find an offsetting chart or stat. Saying “chart X when Bush was in office proves that Bush caused condition Y,” even if true, is fallacious, as there are too many variables. To combat such arguments, you simply find numbers that correlate other, equally relevant factors. I don’t mind rhetorical games, if they are acknowledged as such, but I don’t like games where one side is using fallacious he considers rational and to refute it I have to do tons of obvious work he could have done himself.
Dervish, I think, can tolerate Heathen’s style better than I can. For one thing, he is more willing to do the work. For another thing, he has more data in conniving little head.
I try to coax Heathen into arguing what he believes for the reason he believes it, instead of trying to justify his belief with a chart. I have pointed him to other rebutting charts in the past, and he just dismisses them with no real response, which is actually OK because I don't want to Google and find or construct more charts. I consider it disingenuous and boring.
At one point, when I had a little more time, I was considering getting a four man structured debate going, with two far left liberals against two far right conservatives.
The idea would be that there would be ground rules. Hopefully each side would acknowledge them and would try to remove obvious fallacies and obvious ad hominem arguments from the debate.
I was not going to be on the team. On the liberal side I wanted Burr Deming on the Team, and Dervish on the team. On the conservative side, I wanted Dervish as the Heathen offset and I needed someone who argues philosophically (as opposed to someone who argues more technically, which is how I classify Dervish and Heathen). I could not really find a Conservative who made what I consider sound philosophical arguments for the majority of their positions. I do believe such a conservative is out there. I think I can make sound, though ultimately misguided, philosophical conservative arguments to support conservative positions (I used to be mostly a conservative back in the day).
Here were my problems: 1. Those I wanted on the team did not seem willing, with the possible exception of Heathen. 2. I could not find an appropriate conservative to make the rational arguments, or arguments where one truly argues what he believe for the reason he believes it, as opposed to the legalistic arguments where one argues as a retained attorney would. I needed all four personas to make this idea work.
So, it didn’t happen. The moral of the story, I suppose, is this: thought Dervish has huge character flaws in my opinion (huge ones: too partisan, too aggressive, too personal), I wanted him on my team.
Alas, it never happened.
Dervish,
... And by the way, I do argue with Will when I am motivated to do so, as can be seen here.. However, I respect a lot of his perspectives even when I don't agree with them.
I do not seem him as a conservative and I do not seem him as extreme.
Thank you John. I could make a list of the dozen or so plus liberal positions (INCLUDING a belief that the top tax rates go back to the Clinton era of 39.6% - as part of an overall deficit reduction package) that I have and enumerate that I haven't voted Republican for President since Bush 1 in '88 but wd doesn't generally incorporate reality into these odd proclamations of his.......And a lot depends on what your definition of "conservative" is. For instance, wd thinks that my support for Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici constitutes conservatism - this, despite the fact that Paul Ryan voted against Bowles-Simpson and Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin both voted FOR IT!!!! I mean, how do you even reason with somebody like this?
John Myste: just as I am a liberal, despite the rumors [to the contrary]
Why are there rumors? There must be a reason.
Will: ...despite the fact that Paul Ryan voted against Bowles-Simpson and Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin both voted FOR IT!!!!
Jan Schakowsky voted "no". She said she opposed the plan because she believes the deficit can be reduced without "further eroding the middle class in America".
I don't know why Conrad and Durbin voted to erode the middle class. That doesn't make the idea not Conservative. Conservatives favor eroding the middle class in order to enrich the already wealthy. Paul Ryan voted "no" because the plan didn't erode the middle class enough!
John, I don't agree with Jan Schakowsky's characterization that it would further erode the Middle Class. a) It raises gobs of revenue by closing tax expenditures that predominantly benefit the wealthy and b) it significantly bends the cost curve on entitlements, thereby preserving them (yes, it does raise the retirement age but it also has some means-testing that again disproportionately huts the wealthy). I'm not as certain as to what it does on defense spending, but if it does make some significant cuts there, too, all the better.
Oh,wait a minute, that was wd. Sorry.
I just researched it. Bowles Simpson trims a full $100,000,000,000 from the defense budget over a 5 year period. And the hawks don't like it.
John Myste: just as I am a liberal, despite the rumors [to the contrary]
Dervish: Why are there rumors? There must be a reason.
Yes, often if I use complete reason and logic, if it does not completely validate a liberal claim, then the liberal claims I am a conservative. It is a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I have to agree, in complete solidarity, with fallacious reasoning if the reasoning draws the same liberal conclusions I draw, else I am not a true liberal. Additionally, if liberals typically have 100 beliefs, and I reject the ten unreasonable ones, then, since I did not blindly adhere to the playbook, I am a liberal. That is the justification. So irrational people accuse me of being a conservative unless I validate their irrational logic. Simply disagreeing with an argument that a liberal, any liberal, makes, makes me a conservative. That is the reasoning.
Dervish,
Read the following and tell me if you would think it describes a conservative or a liberal.
I support:
Universal Healthcare
Gay Marriage
Government that is as big as is needed to make the country the best it can be
Federalism.
A living constitution.
Abortion, though I do think it is the taking of a human life.
Progressive vs Flat Taxation
Gun Control
Animal Rights
Education
Medicare
Social Security
Welfare
Separation of Church and State
FDA Regulations
EPA regulations
Campaign Finance Regulations
Gays in the Military, Women in the Military, Blacks in the Military
State Casinos and Gambling.
Immigrant Rights and the Dream Act
Stem Cell Research
Handling of Global Warming
Entitlements
I am against:
The Patriot Act
Capital Punishment
Excise Taxes and "Vice" Taxes
Privatizing Medicare.
Making Excessive War
Doctrine of Original Intent or worship of the Founders
The concept that this nation should be a Christian Nation.
Supply Side Economics
I'm not sure how official any of these labels are anymore, John.
I don't believe in adhering to a "playbook". I don't think that's the reason for these "rumors".
Dervish,
I don't believe in adhering to a "playbook". I don't think that's the reason for these "rumors".
I completely understand. So, read the list I posted above and please tell me if you would classify that guy as a liberal, a moderate or a conservative.
Dervish,
don't believe in adhering to a "playbook". I don't think that's the reason for these "rumors".
And since you discount the answer I gave, I must assume you have more data than I on the topic. Can you please provide the additional data that gives you your enhanced opinion of the cause of these "rumors?" I did provide the data that makes me mistake myself for a liberal, after all, so it is only fair.
John Myste: Can you please provide the additional data that gives you your enhanced opinion of the cause of these "rumors?"
You are correct in assuming that I have more data then you on the subject. The additional data I have that gives me my enhanced opinion is that I have tracked down and interviewed every single self-professed Liberal that has ever accused you of being a conservative (although for confidentially reason I cannot reveal any names).
Under intense questioning every one of these individuals eventually conceded that you are a Liberal, but that you're a snoody one. They resented the fact that you present yourself as a "reasonable Liberal". A "reasonable liberal" on a mission to make other Liberals look bad (for some inexplicable reason).
Although some of the interviewees said you were the "most conservative Liberal" they had ever encountered.
I hope this information helps.
Also, according to the playbook, you're wrong on the following:
[1] Abortion. It is not the taking of a human life. How could you support it if it were? What kind of monster are you?
[2] Your opposition to Excise Taxes and "Vice" Taxes. Why? I don't get this one.
Perhaps you're just a Democrat and not a Liberal? Some of the interviewees had that opinion (this is a correction to my previous comment in which I said all the people I interviewed conceded that you were a liberal. They actually said "maybe" about you being a Liberal. Most thought you fell short of being considered a genuine Liberal.
How 'bout this, John is an idiosyncratic somewhat left of center individual who's open-minded, loves to play devil's advocacy, and who tries to find common ground with folks? Yeah? No?
Dervish,
I am impressed that you found all the liberals. The reason I am "snoody" toward them, which is kind of like being snooty before you graduate, is that I do not like being identified with fallacious logic, even though I love being identified as a liberal. The only way to achieve this is to correct absurd arguments and advance decent ones. I hope the liberals you encountered understand this.
As for my stance on abortion, I agree that it is logical and reasonable, so does not follow the liberal playbook. However, in the end, I support abortion, so I should get partial credit.
As for sin taxes especially, they primarily oppress the poor, which is why I don't like them. A smoker will smoke, even if he does not eat. A sin tax is a much larger percentage of the income of a poor person, who ironically, is also more likely to engage in the "sin."
Taxes should not be discriminatory, but especially so when it favors the poor.
wd doesn't give partial credit, John.
I'll accept your answer on sin taxes, but not your answer on abortion. I do not find it "logical and reasonable" to accept abortion if you also think it is the taking of a human life.
What is your problem with excise taxes?
And Will, you don't know how I view "partial credit", and if I ever give it. You're guessing. I'll give it to him on his answer to the abortion question. I still don't understand it though.
I'll also accept your description of John Myste's political ideology. But I wouldn't say being "somewhat left of center" necessarily makes someone a Liberal.
I'll accept your answer on sin taxes, but not your answer on abortion. I do not find it "logical and reasonable" to accept abortion if you also think it is the taking of a human life.
“Human” is a label we invented to understand certain real bipedal beings. I do not then try to figure out right from wrong based on the label. There are two or more people involved, the fetus, the mother, perhaps others, all with implied rights.
What is your problem with excise taxes?
I am nowhere as nearly against them as I am sin taxes. My gripe is with any tax discrimination that can too easily be focused to indirectly weigh against a certain group, not openly, but for non-transparent reasons. We should tax progressively and uniformly.
I'll also accept your description of John Myste's political ideology. But I wouldn't say being "somewhat left of center" necessarily makes someone a Liberal.
I am way left of center and yet I feel no loyalty to extreme arguments. In fact, identifying myself with them is embarrassing. I prefer to identify myself with conclusions only, and my reasons for getting there.
That's fine. Call yourself a Liberal. I won't object. But I still take exception to your snoodiness. I, myself, having been subjected to it.
Dervish,
Let's assume that "snoodiness" equates to an arrogant air of superiority. If that is the definition, you are about as "snoody" as fellow can be, and I generally forgive you because of your other virtues.
John Myste: ...you are about as "snoody" as fellow can be...
Give one example. You can't. I predict crickets.
Dervish,
I have no time or interest in pouring back over this site just to best you in the "snoodiness" debate.
Next time you do it, and direct toward me, I shall accommodate you. If you do it in a war with someone else, where my intervening would cause the appearance that I was taking a position against you, when in reality I am just identifying your "snoodiness," then you will have to wait.
Post a Comment