Natural Born Citizenship
Quote: AZDuffmanThanks for making my point for me. Intelligent readers realize that JFK got elected in 1961
.
How ignorant not to know when Presidential elections are held.
I've found the easiest solution was to ditch TV all together and get my news from a mix of the BBC, CBC, USA Today and a cocktail of the major news sources via Google. Plus the morning news for the headlines rather than editorial. Rolling news is make work BS and generally fills in the time with opinion from people with little facts or knowledge trying to make TV time before it's possible to have facts or opinions on the breaking news of the day.
It leads to such stupidity as the accusation of a right wing nut shooting Giffords due to cross hairs, or Sky TV's laughable theories about the London 7/7 bombings, or doorstepping people in times of crisis. I've found often in these cases the news reporters have far too much focus on news making.
Quote: thecesspitThere's something ironic about praising a station for it's multiple viewpoints, then wishing they'd get rid of those adding to the multiple view points :)
Where did I praise FOX for anything? My sister in law did, not me. I find it ironic that you constantly misread my posts, or read something into them that isn't there. I like FOX, they just lean too far to the Left for my overall taste. Everytime somebody gets fired from CNN, they end up on FOX, whats up with that. And I can take about 2min of Glenn Beck, somethings wrong with that guy.
Quote: EvenBobWhere did I praise FOX for anything? My sister in law did, not me. I find it ironic that you constantly misread my posts, or read something into them that isn't there. I like FOX, they just lean too far to the Left for my overall taste. Everytime somebody gets fired from CNN, they end up on FOX, whats up with that. And I can take about 2min of Glenn Beck, somethings wrong with that guy.
If Fox is too far left for your tastes...even I can't finish that sentence. There aren't words.
I mean, maybe the Chinese government-run stations would be more to your liking?
Quote: FarFromVegasIf Fox is too far left for your tastes..
Compared to 10 years ago, you bet it is. They started to lose me when that little Commie jerk Geraldo came on board. I cannot stand him, he makes me want to harm myself. I remember the 90's when he was totally in the tank for Clinton, he'd foam at the mouth defending every goofy thing Clinton did. Why FOX wants him is beyond me, send him to Afganistan and keep him there.
Quote: EvenBobWhere did I praise FOX for anything? My sister in law did, not me.
Ah, I thought you were pointing out that the variety of opinions was a good thing for FOX being balanced by using an example of your sister's viewing habits. I'd assume if they did ditch the liberals and left and shifted further right then they'd possibly lose some of their viewership that MSNBC has for it's bias.
That I found amusing. You often say you like FOX. I was assuming that was praise from you.
Quote:I find it ironic that you constantly misread my posts, or read something into them that isn't there. I like FOX, they just lean too far to the Left for my overall taste. Everytime somebody gets fired from CNN, they end up on FOX, whats up with that. And I can take about 2min of Glenn Beck, somethings wrong with that guy.
This the same Glenn Beck back in August you said :: "I like the guy, he's very likable. His honesty and emotion are refreshing, his knowledge is encyclopedic, and his ability to entertain is amazing. Good for him." ?
Has he got worse or changed that his style? As I say, I don't watch TV news anymore.
And I'm with you on Geraldo.. he's bloody awful as a reporter and newsman. He should have lost his job over that incident where he gave away military info.
Quote: thecesspit
Has he got worse or changed that his style? .
I'm no longer a Beck fan. He's gotten paranoid, every show is about the sky falling. He a conspiracy theorist and I really think he has a screw loose. By his own admission he was an out of control alcoholic, now he's an out of control nut job.
Quote: pacomartinMinor correction: elections take place in even years. JFK was elected in 1960 and took office on 20 January 1961.
No dispute with your principal claim that the cuts took effect in late 1961 at the earliest.
Sorry. Was typing that out really quick as I had to go to work.
Quote: Wavy70Duff I was using the dates your provided. I highly doubt you would know what an intelligent reader would realize. I was just proving beyond a doubt that the numbers you spout and "facts" you spout are useless and pulled from Lord knows where. Oh wait you often reference a professor in college told you 40 years ago or you remember from high school. Discussions with you are useless. You seem to be unable to think things clearly. You start wiht the answer and make the facts to fit it.
Your arrogance is only outweighed by your ignorance. Enjoy you muddled self assuring life. It can't be easy to be an expert on everything while simultaneously a dullard but you seem to be doing it well.
You have a lack of ability to understand anything that is not already in your head.
No, I have a lack of ability to understand why liberals like yourself cannot say anything but your same worn-out talking points that are totally untrue. I reference actual experiences I have had. You reference nothing of the sort. Now you attack the person after I put some critical thinking to your unemployment numbers. (I already admitted to the typo on the JFK election, sorry there.) As to "being an expert on everything" I prefer to thinking of it as "knowing a bit about many subjects." It comes from a lifetime of many experiences; reading a great deal; and watching things other than "American Idol."
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: pacomartinMinor correction: elections take place in even years. JFK was elected in 1960 and took office on 20 January 1961.
No dispute with your principal claim that the cuts took effect in late 1961 at the earliest.
Sorry. Was typing that out really quick as I had to go to work.
I assumed it was a typo since it wasn't internally consistent. If you really thought he was elected in November 1961 you would have said that the cuts took effect in late 1962 or early 1963.
So, first off, are the birthers going to give it a rest now that a "real" birth certificate has been produced?
You gotta admit that the government, under Bush, raised federal government spending, dramatically, while lowering taxes. This has the temporary effect of keeping the government stable. My feeling is that any terrorist act that brings down two major buildings and starts a war in two countries has got to have a very detrimental effect on one's economy.
It was Bush's decision and the Republican government's decision, alone, to wage an ongoing war in Iraq. It was Bush's decision alone to wage war in Afghanistan. It was Bush's government who passed a massive Medicare Prescription act that is estimated to cost $550 billion over 10 years. The wars costs $860 billion during the Bush era, according to the CBO. Two hurricanes cost $270 billion. There was 1.7 trillion dollars in tax cuts. And then there's TARP.
Fact is, Bush was awful as a fiscal conservative. Obama is worse fiscally. His government has failed to curb spending. Trickery of blaming the Democrats while a Republican leader was present is the same trickery as blaming the Democrat leader when the Republicans are in power in the Congress.
The federal government isn't working. Everyone is afraid of losing their hides from doing the right thing: cut government programs and raise revenue. That's because the election cycle never ends. Tough choices need to be made, and if people get voted out as a result, so be it.
One can always point fingers at a predecessor and blame them, just as easily as someone can point fingers at a current leader and blame them. The fact is that America is a very different country than it was 50 years ago. Manufacturing is mostly gone. It's been outsourced. Service and support is all that it left.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt comes from a lifetime of many experiences; reading a great deal; and watching things other than "American Idol."
Oddly enough, American Idol watching was what originally powered the Fox network into the money making ratings winner. Well, that's what I once read anyway. It was a ratings beast. Not sure how well it does now.
Quote: rxwineOddly enough, American Idol watching was what originally powered the Fox network into the money making ratings winner. Well, that's what I once read anyway. It was a ratings beast. Not sure how well it does now.
I have heard it is still doing well but is not the ratings-killer it was 3-4 years ago. "Dancing with the Stars" seems to be the thing now for women over 30 while the younger set still watching AI. Of course that is just based on what I have seen of ratings and heard in coffee-machine chat at the office. Both shows amaze me in how well they do despite being so female-only driven. I have never heard men talking about either show except to say they do not watch them or hate them. But the women, well, I can say I hated being the only male in my workgroup when AI was at its peak. Was very lonely being the only person in the group who could name more of the justices on the Supreme Court than AI contestants.
BTW, I can still not name one contestant on AI and can only name the judges as, "Simon, Paula, and "the black guy." Am I "out of it?" (yes, I know Simon is gone.)
Quote: AZDuffmanI have heard it is still doing well but is not the ratings-killer it was 3-4 years ago. "Dancing with the Stars" seems to be the thing now for women over 30 while the younger set still watching AI. Of course that is just based on what I have seen of ratings and heard in coffee-machine chat at the office. Both shows amaze me in how well they do despite being so female-only driven. I have never heard men talking about either show except to say they do not watch them or hate them. But the women, well, I can say I hated being the only male in my workgroup when AI was at its peak. Was very lonely being the only person in the group who could name more of the justices on the Supreme Court than AI contestants.
BTW, I can still not name one contestant on AI and can only name the judges as, "Simon, Paula, and "the black guy." Am I "out of it?" (yes, I know Simon is gone.)
It's still #1. The weekly ratings tend to go: Idol competition, DWTS competition, Idol results, DWTS results in first through fourth place. The judges this year are Jennifer Lopez, Steven Tyler from Aerosmith, and "the black guy" (Randy Jackson.) He's still irrelevant, but the other two are on magazine covers all over.
I can name you all the contestants, in the order of elimination so far, AND the justices on the Supreme Court. :P
I like to watch since I can watch it with my kids. Boys will not watch DWTS. One night, I was switching between Miss America and ice dancing, and my oldest son got up and said, "I feel if I sit here any longer a can of Milwaukee's Best will fall on my head." Skimpy costumes ain't enough to keep them in front of the set.
Quote: boymimboIt was Bush's decision and the Republican government's decision, alone, to wage an ongoing war in Iraq. It was Bush's decision alone to wage war in Afghanistan. It was Bush's government who passed a massive Medicare Prescription act that is estimated to cost $550 billion over 10 years. The wars costs $860 billion during the Bush era, according to the CBO. Two hurricanes cost $270 billion. There was 1.7 trillion dollars in tax cuts. And then there's TARP.
Yup, it's not as if Congress never existed or voted, especially the virtually unanimous roll-calls for Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.
Quote: FarFromVegasIt's still #1. The weekly ratings tend to go: Idol competition, DWTS competition, Idol results, DWTS results in first through fourth place. The judges this year are Jennifer Lopez, Steven Tyler from Aerosmith, and "the black guy" (Randy Jackson.) He's still irrelevant, but the other two are on magazine covers all over.
I can name you all the contestants, in the order of elimination so far, AND the justices on the Supreme Court. :P
I like to watch since I can watch it with my kids. Boys will not watch DWTS. One night, I was switching between Miss America and ice dancing, and my oldest son got up and said, "I feel if I sit here any longer a can of Milwaukee's Best will fall on my head." Skimpy costumes ain't enough to keep them in front of the set.
Well, I hope I never play against you on Jeopardy :-)
Milwaukee's Best? After college I promised that stuff would never touch my lips again. I'd rather drink lye.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, I hope I never play against you on Jeopardy :-)
Milwaukee's Best? After college I promised that stuff would never touch my lips again. I'd rather drink lye.
I'm slow with the buzzer. But that's the usual crew I hang with--the game show people.
My son was referring to those commercials when a guy did something girly and the can would crush him. Those were funny.
Quote: FarFromVegasI'm slow with the buzzer. But that's the usual crew I hang with--the game show people.
My son was referring to those commercials when a guy did something girly and the can would crush him. Those were funny.
Oh, I get it now. I was afraid he only had his sights set on MB, and that would be scary :-)
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, I get it now. I was afraid he only had his sights set on MB, and that would be scary :-)
He's 17. Right now he's in the energy drink phase. He thinks beer smells bad. Thank goodness.
Quote: FarFromVegasHe's 17. Right now he's in the energy drink phase. He thinks beer smells bad. Thank goodness.
A good thing for him on the beer at that age. The energy drinks I tried once and did not get. Bleah. If you need a jolt, just say "pepsi, plesae."
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I have a lack of ability to understand why liberals like yourself cannot say anything but your same worn-out talking points that are totally untrue. I reference actual experiences I have had. You reference nothing of the sort. Now you attack the person after I put some critical thinking to your unemployment numbers. (I already admitted to the typo on the JFK election, sorry there.)
Once again your lack of real facts you consider your strength. I assume you have never been wrong in your "mind". You lack the ability for critical thinking. You spout garbage and seem to believe it. I can't blame you I can only assume a poor education.
As I said I hope you are enjoying your mistakenly self assured life.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to "being an expert on everything" I prefer to thinking of it as "knowing a bit about many subjects."
There is an old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That would make you the H Bomb.
Quote: Wavy70Once again your lack of real facts you consider your strength. I assume you have never been wrong in your "mind". You lack the ability for critical thinking. You spout garbage and seem to believe it. I can't blame you I can only assume a poor education.
As I said I hope you are enjoying your mistakenly self assured life.
There is an old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That would make you the H Bomb.
Wizard - It is my understanding that people are suspended for personal insults.
Since you believe liberal policies work, please tell us how you feel about the success or failure of the current administration in regards to implementing the promises made on the campaign trail and improving conditions in this country. Please do it without blaming Bush or the Republican minority that the President dealt with for the first part of his term. Bush is not the President and the Democrats had a majority that could have passed just about anything the President wanted... No one put promises in the President's mouth--he made them. He told us how he would improve things. Has he done it? Is he succeeding? Specifics, please.
Your "critical thinking" insult is typical...if someone doesn't think like you, they must not be as smart as you. That is condescending and ignorant on your part. "Smart" people who can "think critically" are on both sides of the equation, aren't they?
Quote: gofaster87I dont think there is even a remote chance he will get reelected unless no one runs against him.
Really?? What odds would you give me? I will vote against him, but I see no viable challengers out there.
Quote: SOOPOOReally?? What odds would you give me? I will vote against him, but I see no viable challengers out there.
It is still a year and a half out, plenty of time. Where did this notion that the candidates need to be decided 2 years ahead of time come from?
Remember, in mid 1991 Bush41 was riding high on Gulf War success; few dems would even run. Clinton would have been dead if not for Tsongas dropping out of the primary race. Look what happened.
Quote: Wavy70
There is an old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That would make you the H Bomb.
C'mon, guys--that's pretty witty, actually. I may borrow it.
Quote: VirgiI wouldn't think this is the case; the rules of the world seem different for some. While Wavy seems no more or no less the harmless & misled mind of a confused liberal, it is well known that their only way of getting back at someone who disarms them with the truth is to namecall and denigrate. That rule is the same in the streets. Have a conservative protest today? You'll see a responsible gathering of peaceful sign-carrying individuals with something to lose if they get out of line and/or break the law and they know it. OTOH, get the liberal crowd together, turn on the violence, and very few care if they end up under arrest, injured, or in jail. No job, no family, no responsibilities, nothing to lose. Just give 'em the handouts and they'll be happy for a day or two until it's time to claim they're entitled to some more.
You forgot to mention at conservative rallys they actually pick up their litter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AZ8nHHR-P0&feature=related
Quote: timberjimWizard - It is my understanding that people are suspended for personal insults.
Where is the personal insult? Facts do not make insults. This "person" thinks he is an expert on everything. Wasn't he the one informing everyone about reality shows even to people who have been on him. This is not even a political thing. He spouts false facts and BS. Sorry if I am the only one who can do 3 seconds of research and see that what this "person" says is total BS. Tell me which stats he is correct on?
Quote: timberjimWizard - It is my understanding that people are suspended for personal insults.
Double post deleted
Quote: VirgiI wouldn't think this is the case; the rules of the world seem different for some. While Wavy seems no more or no less the harmless & misled mind of a confused liberal, it is well known that their only way of getting back at someone who disarms them with the truth is to namecall and denigrate. That rule is the same in the streets. Have a conservative protest today? You'll see a responsible gathering of peaceful sign-carrying individuals with something to lose if they get out of line and/or break the law and they know it. OTOH, get the liberal crowd together, turn on the violence, and very few care if they end up under arrest, injured, or in jail. No job, no family, no responsibilities, nothing to lose. Just give 'em the handouts and they'll be happy for a day or two until it's time to claim they're entitled to some more.
Keep telling yourself that Virgi
So are you saying that only Fox has made errors in sources they have used in their coverage? Or are you willing to admit that they pretty much ALL have used questionable (sometimes even false) sources of information to bolster their position.
Though the pursuit of Obama's birth certificate got out of hand (and he helped the process as much as others did...it ended up being simple to produce the document when he thought it was the politically opportune time to do so), the birth place of others has been questioned. Chester A. Arthur's was questioned and I can also remember there being a bit of a question about Gerald Ford's birthplace...both are from areas near the Canadian border.
You can't really compare the amount of coverage between the periods of time these incidents took place...we have 24/7 coverage now and EVERY story tends to get beaten to death by the press. This is especially true of some pretty minor stories that take on a life of their own on slow news days...
Quote: RonCOkay, Wavy70, you've taken this to the level of personal insults...why do liberals resort to personal insults when they can't get someone to change their position? I think it is the one thing I see more of from the liberal side than the conservative side; but I have seen it done by both sides.
Since you believe liberal policies work, please tell us how you feel about the success or failure of the current administration in regards to implementing the promises made on the campaign trail and improving conditions in this country. Please do it without blaming Bush or the Republican minority that the President dealt with for the first part of his term. Bush is not the President and the Democrats had a majority that could have passed just about anything the President wanted... No one put promises in the President's mouth--he made them. He told us how he would improve things. Has he done it? Is he succeeding? Specifics, please.
Your "critical thinking" insult is typical...if someone doesn't think like you, they must not be as smart as you. That is condescending and ignorant on your part. "Smart" people who can "think critically" are on both sides of the equation, aren't they?
Ron C my posts are no more insulting or condescending than his just better worded and accurate. The fact is the "facts" he spouts are BS and the numbers backing his facts are purely false. Sorry I would apologize if anyone can take his original post and show me how his numbers are correct and the DOL numbers are false for the last 40 years. Sorry if calling BS what it is bothers you. I have also called out MKL when he spouted BS facts. Have you called out any of the conservatives here that spout BS like Duff does daily?
Like I said. His post and facts are BS so I am shocked that I am the first person to realize he is either gravely mistaken or unable to tell the truth.
Quote: RonCWavy, you called out Fox for using a false source a while ago...
So are you saying that only Fox has made errors in sources they have used in their coverage? Or are you willing to admit that they pretty much ALL have used questionable (sometimes even false) sources of information to bolster their position.
Though the pursuit of Obama's birth certificate got out of hand (and he helped the process as much as others did...it ended up being simple to produce the document when he thought it was the politically opportune time to do so), the birth place of others has been questioned. Chester A. Arthur's was questioned and I can also remember there being a bit of a question about Gerald Ford's birthplace...both are from areas near the Canadian border.
You can't really compare the amount of coverage between the periods of time these incidents took place...we have 24/7 coverage now and EVERY story tends to get beaten to death by the press. This is especially true of some pretty minor stories that take on a life of their own on slow news days...
I called out fox for referencing a well known joke website as news.
As far as the Birthers I agree with the Wiz it is a good way to tell rational from non. (Paraphrased). I wish President Obama never showed it. Nothing was funnier than watching the impassioned people who feared them commie helicopters.
Quote: VirgiI wouldn't think this is the case; the rules of the world seem different for some. While Wavy seems no more or no less the harmless & misled mind of a confused liberal, it is well known that their only way of getting back at someone who disarms them with the truth is to namecall and denigrate. That rule is the same in the streets. Have a conservative protest today? You'll see a responsible gathering of peaceful sign-carrying individuals with something to lose if they get out of line and/or break the law and they know it. OTOH, get the liberal crowd together, turn on the violence, and very few care if they end up under arrest, injured, or in jail. No job, no family, no responsibilities, nothing to lose. Just give 'em the handouts and they'll be happy for a day or two until it's time to claim they're entitled to some more.
Something about this sounds familiar...
Altut
Quote: Wavy70Ron C my posts are no more insulting or condescending than his just better worded and accurate. The fact is the "facts" he spouts are BS and the numbers backing his facts are purely false. Sorry I would apologize if anyone can take his original post and show me how his numbers are correct and the DOL numbers are false for the last 40 years. Sorry if calling BS what it is bothers you. I have also called out MKL when he spouted BS facts. Have you called out any of the conservatives here that spout BS like Duff does daily?
Maybe you should look back and see the flow of the posts:
1. You said "trickle-down" does not work
2. I made a general statement showing how it worked in the 1960s, 1980s, and 2000s.
3. You put up unemployment numbers with some statements. Your statements were incorrect in analysis as you implied JFK took office in 1960 and that the Democrats took power in Congress in 2006. They also showed a basic misunderstanding that tax cuts will be made today will magically lower unemployment within a few months or else "they did not work."
4. I made some correct analysis that unemployment fell faster after tax cuts and about how you had distorted things like when an election was held vs when power changes. I admitted to a typo of when JFK took office in my post.
5. When your liberal propoganda was shown to be false you did not offer rebuttal but instead personal insults. Common behavior for liberals when their first talking point gets blown out of the water.
Now you get upset that I have commented on other items "as if I were an expert." In your world having an opinion or offering what a person thinks about something is seemingly not allowed I suppose. I guess you think unless someoe has been a producer of a reality show they cannot talk about one. Or if they have not been a casino manager thay cannot talk about that. My that would be a boring world.
If independent thought and critical analysis and discussion bother you, please use the "block user" feature. I doubt you will do so as you seem obsessed with me and my posts. Like listeners who hate Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern, you will keep tuning in.
By "intelligence," I mean the ability to understand and absorb what other people say, and not the ability to think for yourself or for critical thinking. This manifests itself in juvenile responses to reasoned arguments. By this, I mean you won't get a counterpoint to your posit that amounts to something other than "Altut said it, so you're both idiots and you must be exactly like him since you think the same way."
In this example, the failure of critical thought is severally manifested ...
* Altut is an idiot but that doesn't mean he lacks the ability to observe
* The most effective liars in history have always mixed lies with the truth to intentionally confuse
* Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
... and that's just off the top of my head. Note that none of it involves citing a steady diet of conservative rallies where people were consistently violent and disrespectful of their opponents or surroundings. OTOH, there is a steady diet of rallies for liberal causes where this happens.
If I understand Wavy's (and those like him) thinking upon reading this, it will basically be to point to isolated incident or two, or to redefine what "violent" or "disrespectful" means, or to call me some sort of name, or to try to align me with notorious others like Altut, MKL, or Hitler.
Here's how it works. We know that the most effective liars mix lies with truth, but liberals can't think critically to discern that. It is a good thing and a liberal mantra to help the poor. They assign a single way to do that ... government spending ... and if you don't think exactly like that, you're a hard-hearted asshole who wants old people to die (to quote Pelosi and Obama). True: helping the poor is good. Lie: there is only a single way to help the poor. Since liberals like Wavy can't think critically, they can't make that distinction with anything, and they assign it to their political opponents. Hence ... if you think conservative rallies are peaceful and clean, no matter the pile of evidence, you MUST be someone like Altut.
Conversations about politics with people like Wavy are not worth having. They are immensely frustrating to anyone with intellectual honesty or the ability to think critically. Wavy's way of thinking is probably rooted in following those whom he aligns with rather than trying to arrive at a conclusion or defend a point with honesty. It's basically the same thing as Whoopi Goldberg walking out on her own show because she didn't like a point Bill O'Reilly made ... never mind honest engagement with an influential media member, it was, "You're an idiot! You're stupid! I'm leaving!" Wavy is this same way, although instead of leaving, he ridicules.
His views will stay the way they are, probably until one of two things happens. He matures and becomes able to think for himself and realizes he's been lied to (see also "when you're young, you're liberal, and when you grow up, you become conservative") or he'll double-down on the lie and cling to it to his own detriment because, goddammit, Republicans are assholes and I'll see myself and everyone else poor and destitute, Soviet-style, before admitting I was wrong! (see also Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc.)
Conservatives will never convince all liberals that they're buying a fundamental lie; I think it will, at least, be about 35% of any nation that thinks this way. I also think about 45% think fundamentally conservative, although from a reasoned standpoint based on sound criticism and empirical results. I think it's the ability to convince the middle 20% that swings elections.
In the current American political landscape, I see a late 70s-like swing to conservatism, now that empirical results and the clarity of the fundamental liberal lie are coming into view. But I also think that liberals will find another way to lie, and it will swing back and forth. In this media age, I further see it swinging severely the left's way when they've hit upon a lie-mix that works (2006 - 2009), but equally fiercely swinging back when the lie is successfully parsed and/or the results are just awful like they are today (2010 - present). But I also think there will be a slow reversion as a new lie is implanted and absorbed. It took 12 years last cycle (1994-2006), so maybe it will take as long (2013 - 2025 or so) this time. But that's just a guess.
Quote: RonCOkay, Wavy70, you've taken this to the level of personal insults...why do liberals resort to personal insults when they can't get someone to change their position? I think it is the one thing I see more of from the liberal side than the conservative side; but I have seen it done by both sides.
You made a nice try at this one; you basically said that you are smarter so your comments are better than his. Okay.
Quote: RonCSince you believe liberal policies work, please tell us how you feel about the success or failure of the current administration in regards to implementing the promises made on the campaign trail and improving conditions in this country. Please do it without blaming Bush or the Republican minority that the President dealt with for the first part of his term. Bush is not the President and the Democrats had a majority that could have passed just about anything the President wanted... No one put promises in the President's mouth--he made them. He told us how he would improve things. Has he done it? Is he succeeding? Specifics, please.
You didn't address this at all...and it is the main point of my post...an attempt to determine if you can see the failures on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Quote: RonCYour "critical thinking" insult is typical...if someone doesn't think like you, they must not be as smart as you. That is condescending and ignorant on your part. "Smart" people who can "think critically" are on both sides of the equation, aren't they?
Well? Are there smart people on both sides or is only "your" side intelligent?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer(see also "when you're young, you're liberal, and when you grow up, you become conservative")
Actually, it's possible to hold on to a values judgement where the balance between more social welfare or more individual liberty stays somewhat more in favor of social welfare structure, because, it's exactly that: a values judgement. That is, where you decide what you think is a more important value.
I happen to think that some of the burden of social welfare structure is desirable structure for society I want to live in. So, I vote accordingly. I haven't needed the public dole yet (as defined by safety net options), so it's not like I personally benefit from "stealing" from others and all that. I get satisfaction from hearing people whine about unfairness though.
Of course, pick any major conservative discussion site and you'll find plenty of people who take the view that any social program people are the first steps to a Chavez style takeover. Pretending it's either all that or nothing, is of course a BIG LIE too.
Don't want to live in the old Soviet Union, but don't want to live the Tea Party Union either (of it's all about individual me) which is the way I perceive them.
Your contention that I might see how I'm wrong is based on a value I've already rejected as "don't want" since my views have evolved since the days I voted for Reagan. My expectations of society are more than whenever people want to get around to social welfare issues, which is what individualism unfortunately can't help but endorse. So, I see government as the mechanism for that issue.
Quote: rxwine
Don't want to live in the old Soviet Union, but don't want to live the Tea Party Union either (of it's all about individual me) which is the way I perceive them.
You are perceiving it wrong. The Tea Party is hardly calling for an end to all social-safety-net programs. It is more calling for less government intervention. No government running of health care. No taxes on carbon for unproven science. An end to government telling us what to eat; what to drive; how much people should earn; where facrories can locate; and how to live. It is about personal responsibility, that is the individualism aspect of it.
The Boston Tea Party and the American Revolutiuon were not really about getting or doing anything "new." What the revolutionaries wanted was life as they had it years before the Intolerable Acts started. Or in a broad sense, before the French and Indian War. (The 7 Years War to our European Readers.)
The Tea Party also wants life as it was about 40-50 years ago. Before a huge welfare-state. When education and other local decisions were, well, local. When parents told obese kids to turn off the GD TV and go outside and play, not have the government tell them they had to buy lunch at school because what mom and dad packed was not good enough. Before we had a POTUS who stated directly he wanted coal-burning power plants to go out of business. Before skin color determined if you got hired or accepted to a good school. When people took more care of their own and were not allowed to say, "don't blame me!"
Oh, and before someone on the left chimes in the Tea Party is NOT about wanting a return to segregation, etc.
The Tea Partys I have been to had the friendliest people around. Had a very minor fender-bender after one. Cars both had merely scratches that would buff out. Even though we exchanged info I never heard from the other guy again.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are perceiving it wrong. The Tea Party is hardly calling for an end to all social-safety-net programs. It is more calling for less government intervention. No government running of health care. No taxes on carbon for unproven science. An end to government telling us what to eat; what to drive; how much people should earn; where facrories can locate; and how to live. It is about personal responsibility, that is the individualism aspect of it.
Well, I kinda see this as individualism versus the uneasy consensus of more restriction.
For instance we could go round and round about whether we should just go back to letting cigarette companies sell cigarettes and advertising and all as they were 50 years ago and let consumers decide, or whether the individual liberty restrictions we've created have had a desirable net benefit in where we are now that outweighs it.
We know what happens in both cases --
and that's why I say it's a value judgement. Which way do you want to live? I call for more group sacrifice in some cases, you'd call for more individual freedom. I'm pretty sure ('cause I've read you enough that we don't come down on the same side more than once)
Quote: AZDuffman... The Tea Party also wants life as it was about 40-50 years ago. Before .... Before skin color determined if you got hired or accepted to a good school. ...
What era was that? It certainly was an important factor 50 years ago.
Quote: DocWhat era was that? It certainly was an important factor 50 years ago.
I think that is how the liberals get away with branding the Tea Party the way they do...because they see them as wanting to go back to a different era when everything wasn't right in the world. That is an overly simplistic view of MOST people's feelings. Wanting to go back to a time when government seemed like it was more under control is a worthy goal. Local control of many things is better than Washington regulating everything. People can "vote" for the most successful local/state programs by moving to the better places and away from the poorly managed ones. It is also harder to elect federal officials than local ones... It is hard to do that when the federal government rules the roost on too many things...
Quote: DocWhat era was that? It certainly was an important factor 50 years ago.
It is the era we are living in and it is called "Affirmitive Action." The Supreme Court has stated race may be used in college admissions. A bank cannot use sound underwriting for loans if it has a "disparate impact" on a racial group even if race has nothing to do with the standard. These are government laws or/and policies. And they are flat-out discrimination.
Quote: AZDuffman... The Supreme Court has stated race may be used in college admissions. ...
My point was: When was the era that race was not an issue in college admissions? Or in hiring? I thought your earlier post implied that it was not an issue 40 - 50 years ago and that recovering that non-discriminatory environment was the objective of the Tea Party. I questioned whether that was the case 50 years ago, and I question whether we have ever attained that environment.
When I applied for college in 1963, I could clearly see both racial (anti-black) discrimination and reverse (pro-minority) discrimination in college admissions and financial aid, both at the same time. I don't think I have observed a period when we have had neither.
Quote: RonC
Well? Are there smart people on both sides or is only "your" side intelligent?
I never said there were not intelligent people on both sides. Ask Duff that question. I was just pointing out that the "facts" he spouts are incorrect. His main source of reference seems to be YouTube, Wiki, Things he thinks his teachers told him 40 years ago, diner place-mat trivia and rock solid references as "My friend in the industry told me". As I pointed out before I have called out people on the "left" on this forum when they spouted BS.
There are many people on both sides who are quite intelligent. However when someone spouts things that just are not even close to actual how can they be defended. When he is overwhelmed by his lack of understanding he jump on his soapbox about you can't tell "liberals" anything. That people who don't agree with him must not be as smart as he. If they have a differing opinion they must be wrong.
I have asked him many times in the past if he can give reference to his "facts" but he never can.
For some strange reason he is continuing to go on about how clean protests are. He cites the same YouTube video. I asked him about his facts about his claims on the cleanliest of protests. Such as how many in attendance trash collected in cans as opposed to on the ground, etc. He just never seems able to provide any source on his "stats". How he made this assessment aside from one video on YouTube.
I just pointed out the DOL statistics were in exact opposite of his statement. Are we to assume that the DOL numbers online are less accurate than his?
So please examine his posts for what you found in mine.
Both can happen, both can work. But I don't think both at same time can without massive economic problems down the line.
I realize I am simplifying some what, but it is interesting as an outside observer. Whether you go for the liberal lie, or the conservative lie (wink, wink, nod, nod). What you decide is of course your own business.
Quote: DocMy point was: When was the era that race was not an issue in college admissions? Or in hiring? I thought your earlier post implied that it was not an issue 40 - 50 years ago and that recovering that non-discriminatory environment was the objective of the Tea Party. I questioned whether that was the case 50 years ago, and I question whether we have ever attained that environment.
When I applied for college in 1963, I could clearly see both racial (anti-black) discrimination and reverse (pro-minority) discrimination in college admissions and financial aid, both at the same time. I don't think I have observed a period when we have had neither.
The issue is that 40-50 years ago race was not by matter of law and policy a factor. Today it is. Set-asides for "minority" contractors; affirimitive-action in college admissions, etc. The Tea Party wants race not to be a factor at all. My guess is most people at any rally would answer "yes" if you asked them if we should eliminate the "race" box you check on job applications, government forms, etc.
Quote: Wavy70
I just pointed out the DOL statistics were in exact opposite of his statement. Are we to assume that the DOL numbers online are less accurate than his?
No, what you did was simply post DOL unemployment numbers to try to show that your "fact" of "tax cuts don't work" to be true. I then provided some analysis as to how the unemployment rate fell faster after tax cuts using the very numbers you provided, making my point that tax cuts do help. At this point you decided instead of intelligent re-rebuttal to call me stupid, etc.
Now I post a video showing the Tea Party to be a clean, peaceful group at protests. Instead of finding a credible source to show the oppisite, you again decide to call names and such. When I do cite sources you attack the sources. If I talk without citing sources you attack me for "being an expert."
But again, all part of the same liberal playbook. I've seen it onine for 20 years.
