or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore - Page 10

post #361 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cray View Post

U.S. has fallen well behind worlds top 10 fully democratic countries according to latest Economic Intelligence Units (EIU) democracy index. 

 

Yet many Americans still seem to think that U.S. is a model country for democracy - which it has not been for a very long time.

 

Most of the democratic world outside U.S. have long realized that democracy is much more than right to vote or freedoms for the citizens. Democracy is also equally about shared responsibilities - both socially and economically.

 

"Democratic Freedoms" as a term is only half of the truth. U.S. has great history in promoting those freedoms, but U.S. has terrible history in implementing and promoting "Democratic Responsibilities" for it's own citizens.

 

As a bystander living in fully democratic country, I can say that the Obama administration has been strongest supporter of modernizing American society to match the standards that rest of the developed world live by. Hopefully history will recognize that - even if half of the voting America does not.

 

What you call "Obamacare", we've been calling business as usual for the past 50 years. After all, we dont have "uninsured" sick people living on our streets, but instead healthy people working to support themselves - including me.

 

Tis also interesting to note that for a country that espouses "freedom" as a self evident right, the US has the highest incarceration rate (per head of population) of any country in the world (ok - you could probably put North Korea at the top of the list - but that's hardly a mitigation). 

 

And spent more on military expenditure than the next 12 countries combined... 

post #362 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - by details I thought you meant "provide some evidence", or perhaps some citations to credible sources. Or even incredible sources, but displaying provenance would probably hurt rather than help your cause. Those accusations are all readily available on the internet and have been debunked by multiple researchers. Only the extreme right-wing websites seem still to be peddling that stuff - resurrected for this election presumably. I'd have to guess you've been hanging around at Breitbart.com, which I'm starting to think is your preferred source of impartial news. There are reasonable bibliographies for each of those subjects on their Wikipedia pages, which might provide you with more diverse and accurate views of their backgrounds and relationships with Obama, should you happen to be interested in such things.

 

I didn't realize you wanted links.  None of what I posted was "debunked," except perhaps by the left wing media.  

 

Frank Marshall Davis:   Here's one.    And another.    His communist party # was 47544.   Yes, I'm aware that the second link/article is not without a point of view.  

 

Derrick Bell:  Critical Race Theory.    ABC News link to Obama praising Bell and his message.  

 

Bill Ayers:  There is a lot of information out there, but start with his wiki page.   His serving on the Woods Foundation board with Obama is a matter of public record.  Another wikipedia page references the coffee Ayers held for Obama...in Ayers' home.  

 

Now, you will certainly find those outlets that "investigate" the above and claim they are all just right-wing conspiracy theories.  You will also find unproven allegations in the right wing media, from Ayers co-writing or ghostwriting Obama's book Dreams of My Father" to other unsupported charges.  However, we do know the following:  

 

  • Davis was a Communist and was a mentor to Obama
  • Bell espoused Critical Race Theory, which rejects the message of Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr.  
  • Obama embraced Bell publicly while at Harvard
  • Obama had quite a bit of contact with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.  How close their relationship was is difficult to tell, but we know Obama lived near Ayers, had coffee in his home while being promoted for State Senate by his predecessor, and served as a founding director of the Woods Foundation with Ayers.  

 

 

Keep in mind, I'm not saying Obama believes all or even most of what the above radicals did/do.  I'm saying past associations matter.  

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #363 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Republicans are reality deniers and thats why they lost badly. They will continue to lose if they continue to deny facts (science, etc...). Then Republicans parade around claiming black are lazy when much of the wealth created in this country was created off the backs of slaves....and they latinos are taking all their jobs and government benefits. The very statement like I want my country back reeks of racial undertones. The days of white people getting preferential simply for being white are coming to an end.

 

1. Speaking as a conservative, I reject those who reject science. I also don't believe can explain all, and don't reject people of faith.

 

2. Who is claiming "blacks are lazy?" 3. You realize that Republicans were the ones who actually pushed to end slavery, right?

 

4. Latinos are not the problem. Those who come to the U.S. illegally are. This is a complicated issue, but we need to address the border, those who live here now, and future immigration.

 

5. Speaking as the OP, I can assure you there are no "racial undertones." Isn't it funny that racists see everything racial terms?

 

6. Those days have long since past, as they should have. No one should receive preferential or discriminatory treatment based on the color of his skin.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #364 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - by details I thought you meant "provide some evidence", or perhaps some citations to credible sources. Or even incredible sources, but displaying provenance would probably hurt rather than help your cause. Those accusations are all readily available on the internet and have been debunked by multiple researchers. Only the extreme right-wing websites seem still to be peddling that stuff - resurrected for this election presumably. I'd have to guess you've been hanging around at Breitbart.com, which I'm starting to think is your preferred source of impartial news. There are reasonable bibliographies for each of those subjects on their Wikipedia pages, which might provide you with more diverse and accurate views of their backgrounds and relationships with Obama, should you happen to be interested in such things.

 

I didn't realize you wanted links.  None of what I posted was "debunked," except perhaps by the left wing media.  

 

Frank Marshall Davis:   Here's one.    And another.    His communist party # was 47544.   Yes, I'm aware that the second link/article is not without a point of view.  

 

Derrick Bell:  Critical Race Theory.    ABC News link to Obama praising Bell and his message.  

 

Bill Ayers:  There is a lot of information out there, but start with his wiki page.   His serving on the Woods Foundation board with Obama is a matter of public record.  Another wikipedia page references the coffee Ayers held for Obama...in Ayers' home.  

 

Now, you will certainly find those outlets that "investigate" the above and claim they are all just right-wing conspiracy theories.  You will also find unproven allegations in the right wing media, from Ayers co-writing or ghostwriting Obama's book Dreams of My Father" to other unsupported charges.  However, we do know the following:  

 

  • Davis was a Communist and was a mentor to Obama
  • Bell espoused Critical Race Theory, which rejects the message of Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr.  
  • Obama embraced Bell publicly while at Harvard
  • Obama had quite a bit of contact with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.  How close their relationship was is difficult to tell, but we know Obama lived near Ayers, had coffee in his home while being promoted for State Senate by his predecessor, and served as a founding director of the Woods Foundation with Ayers.  

 

 

Keep in mind, I'm not saying Obama believes all or even most of what the above radicals did/do.  I'm saying past associations matter.  

 

Yes, I've read all that stuff. I see a lot of vague allegations that amount to almost nothing but are nicely couched to give the impression of much more. "Mentor" is a good example of misusing a word for that effect. Consider the Ayers question for example: claiming that Ayers and Obama were founding board members of the Woods Fund of Chicago (as you did earlier) is plain incorrect - Obama was, but Ayers joined much later and they only overlapped by a couple of years. You cited Ayers Wikipedia page, which I think is a credible source. Did you even read it?

Quote:
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama, a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years.[61] After being raised by the American and British press[61][62][63] the connection was picked up by conservative blogs and newspapers in the United States. The matter was raised in a campaign debate by moderator George Stephanopoulos, and later became an issue for the John McCain presidential campaign. Investigations by The New York TimesCNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[64][65][66]

 

The established interactions between Obama and these guys are largely incidental, and a poor excuse for labeling Obama as a radical.

post #365 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

You're kind of all over the map here, but I'll try to step in and clarify some things for you. I doubt I'll get to all of your points though...

 

Gee, thanks for the condescending attitude. It sure is appreciated! Doubly-so when talking out your butt!

Quote:
First and foremost: Obama was in fact handed a $1.3 trillion spending deficit by the outgoing Bush administration (Bush's final budget for 2009 tripled the deficit in one go… a nice parting gift!). So, please lay the blame for initiating that "borrowing spree" where it squarely belongs.

 

He wasn't. I did place the blame where it belongs. You need to step up your game if you are going to talk about the budget and who is responsible for it.

Quote:
If you understand the economics behind governmental budgeting and revenue collection you'll know that deficits, once initiated, are never easy to reverse. But there are additional factors that count in this situation, and must be accounted for.

 

Actually, no, it is quite easy to stop borrowing and spending. What is much harder though is to keep the votes being bought with that money. That is what really should be accounted for.

Quote:
What we experienced beginning in 2007/8 wasn't a simple Recession. It was a systemic failure. A severe economic downturn not just a Recession. Obama has presided over the hardest recovery in recent history because he was handed the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Most economists agree that not only was this systemic, but is likely to take closer to ten years to fully recover from (meaning, return to economic parity). Most economists also agree that this President has done an above average job of managing the crisis.

 

The systemic failure was bad housing loans which had been backed by GSA's. The GSA's were created by the government. The recession was a little deeper and longer than most recessions but nothing unheard of in our history. When you compare it to say, 9/11 in which a trillion dollars worth of wealth and economic activity were wiped off the map in a day, it actually isn't bad at all and the point is we recovered from that and also our president at the time got us growing and working again.

 

Quote:
In fairness, Obama wasn't just handed a trillion dollar deficit. That was handed to him alongside an economy in free fall, shedding 850k jobs a month, housing and financial markets on the verge of total collapse, and due to tax cuts and recession, revenue had fallen to under 14% of GDP, while Bush's budget grew spending to over 20% of GDP… GDP meanwhile was at a MINUS 9% growth rate in Bush's last quarter...

 

First he wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit. He signed it into existence. Second he doubled down by requesting more stimulus. Per your reasoning what he was actually handed was the answer because government spending is the answer and per you, he was handed lots of spending so again per you, his predecessor didn't hurt him but in fact helped him. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Bush's $4 trillion in borrowing was bad, then Obama's is worse. If Obama's is just helping the economy via spending the so was Bush's. It doesn't matter if holes are being dug or refilled, windows being broken and replaced or wars are being fought. Government spending is government spending and lack of it is lack of it. You can't be a hypocrite. The economy was indeed in a recession and it was much the same when Bush received it in 2001. Likewise Clinton received an economy coming out of recession when he took office. It's almost like a common sort of thing most presidents face and thus it should show their leadership rather than be a pathetic excuse.

Quote:
Unemployment was at 7.5% when Obama took office, and rocketing upward. It slid to just over 10% about 9 months later. It stopped it and reversed from there, in part thanks to the stimulus and other emergency actions by the President and Congress. It has sine returned almost to the same level as when Obama took office, but with one CLEAR difference. Instead of being around 7.5% and LOSING 850k jobs a month, we're at 7.8% and GAINING 250k a month. Failure? Really?

Yes failure because that "growth" came at the expense of future growth because the debt must now be paid down. The stimulus plan declared that without action the unemployment rate would hit 8%. With action it was supposed to be much lower than that and also much lower than that now. We borrowed trillions to avoid deep economic pain and instead got the debt and the economic pain. That is a failure. Now we will have to pay it back and the drag on the economy will likely cause another recession. Obama's own forecasts were hopelessly wrong and so were the economists who endorsed them. Regardless though, the one area everyone was in agreement was that paying back the stimulus would lower future economic growth. We weren't getting something for nothing. We were borrowing future growth for the present. We didn't get that level of present economic growth. We have anemic growth and now it will lower further when the borrowing and spending must stop.

Quote:
It's important to see where we've been, compared to where we are and the direction we're headed. If you're going to declare this President a failure, you have to base it on something tangible. Look over these links, and then get back to me.

 

Would you like me to bring you a coffee and hike up my skirt as well? Don't be a condescending asshole.

Quote:

Is he a failure in your mind because he didn't accomplish MORE, FASTER? Because from what I can see, we are recovering (e.g. the stock market doubled in value over Obama's first term)… and although slowly due mostly to the depth of the crisis, it is encouraging and promising recovery. I'm seeing the result of SUCCESSFUL policy, not failed policy.

 

Of course the stock market is going up. The key industries are being fed massive amounts of government money in pure crony capitalism. Certain people are getting rich at the government trough all in the name of "helping the poor." It is failed policy because it isn't real growth and can't be sustained. You're looking at a snapshot. I'm looking at the movie. GM looks marginally successful right now because the government stuck all their bad debts into a shell company (ala Enron) and handed them massive wads of cash. Then it paid people to buy new cars and turn in their old ones (Cash for Clunkers) gave them credits for buying certain cars (Volt) and they still haven't taken the losses because they are co-owners who bought the stock at an inflated price.

 

The photo is of someone flying. The movie is of them falling and hitting the ground. What happens when no one can pay someone to buy their cars? What happens when the tax credits expire? What happens when the stock has to be sold at the present value rather than sit on the government books at an inflated value? THUD.

 

Quote:

I'm curious where you're getting your information? It seems to be very heavily spun into an anti-Obama narrative...

 

While it's true that the final '09 budget was foisted off on and signed by Obama in March of '09, he wasn't happy about it, quote: "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government…" That's pretty much how he felt about what was handed him.

 

Calling Obama and the Democrats exclusively responsible for the budgetary results of that year (spending increases and deficits) shows you to be ill-informed at best.

 

It's called the public record. It's called knowing how the budget process works. It's called not getting my information from Daily Kos while being a condescending ass and claiming someone else is ignorant.

 

So we are supposed to understand that Obama signed the budget but "wasn't happy about it" and the next four budgets he signed all happened to do the exact same thing and I guess he wasn't in control of or happy about that either. They were exclusively responsible because they had control of the House and Senate for 3 out of the 5 years being discussed and when they had lost control of the House just didn't pass a budget at all and ran the same numbers up on continuing resolutions. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in years.

Quote:

You also said Bush only signed 3 of 12 bills passed by Congress in his last year? That would be the second session of the 110th, Congress, yes? Except…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

 

Not sure what you're getting at there…? That's a lot more than 12 bills and… "enacted" usually means a President signed off on them, no?

 

 

Okay, this might be horrifying to someone like yourself who claims to know so much but actually understands so little but while there are indeed perhaps hundreds of bills considered and even passed by the Congress every year. The bulk of ongoing spending and the budget itself is undertaken in 12 major bills. Those 12 bills are, get this will ya, actually created in 12 committees that exist in both the House and Senate.

 

So now to clarify for you there champ, those 12 bills, they weren't all passed when Bush was in office. The Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006. Deficit spending almost immediately went up to $400 billion a year. They knew that Bush was a lame duck and held off passing certain bills. They held them for their own candidate and when he was elected, they stuffed them full of the spending they wanted and he signed them. Obama signed 9 of the 12 appropriations bills that create the budget for FY2009. That's a fact. He didn't inherit it. He created it.

 

We have gone three years without a budget because....surprise Republicans have taken the House.

 

Quote:

As far as job losses go: when Bush left we were shedding 850k jobs a month, with the entire economy heading south. National Unemployment figures bottomed out at 10.1% in October '09. We recovered to 7.8% recently… ALL net jobs taken into account, Obama has a net positive almost double that of Bush. Those numbers are readily available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov) along with tons of other interesting and FACTUAL employment statistics...

 

Yes and again, folks like yourself magically don't add any losses or mis-assign or just rationalize them away. Obama is responsible for the job creation during his term. NET positive means beyond the losses, not ignoring them and counting from the bottom of the recession every job as a gain.

 

Now go inform yourself on the budget process. Stop thinking you know it all because you get the DailyKos alerts and get back to me when you have a clue.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #366 of 455
Thread Starter 
1. You find the NYT, CNN et al "credible?"

2. Davis was, in fact, a mentor to Obama. Obama speaks of him glowingly in his book, referring to him as "Frank." The two men were close.

3. I may have erred on the "founding" board member thing. They did serve on said board for 3 years together.

4. I am not claiming Obama is a radical like Ayers, Bell and Davis. I'm saying that his past associations concern me. How did these men influence Obama's thinking? What evidence exists that rejected their ideologies? In fact, the evidence shows that Obama embraced at least some of their beliefs. The same applies to Obama's long standing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We don't attribute Wright's disgusting anti-American screeds to Obama, or should we. But asking how and why Obama tolerated such comments over a long period of time is perfectly legitimate.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #367 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. You find the NYT, CNN et al "credible?"

2. Davis was, in fact, a mentor to Obama. Obama speaks of him glowingly in his book, referring to him as "Frank." The two men were close.

3. I may have erred on the "founding" board member thing. They did serve on said board for 3 years together.

4. I am not claiming Obama is a radical like Ayers, Bell and Davis. I'm saying that his past associations concern me. How did these men influence Obama's thinking? What evidence exists that rejected their ideologies? In fact, the evidence shows that Obama embraced at least some of their beliefs. The same applies to Obama's long standing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We don't attribute Wright's disgusting anti-American screeds to Obama, or should we. But asking how and why Obama tolerated such comments over a long period of time is perfectly legitimate.

 

1.  Compared to Canada Free Press and American Thinker? I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark on that one.

 

2.  He visited him on several occasions to ask his advice. Not my idea of "close" or "mentor", but you may have had different experiences.

 

3.  You think Obama should have quit the board immediately that Ayers joined, to avoid criticism?

 

4.  Do you worry about the books that politicians have read, the movies they have seen, the places they have visited? All those things that influence everyone's thinking. Now you want proof that he rejected their ideologies? Do you think that maybe you are being just a tiny bit unreasonable? I guess there's nothing like a good witch hunt to ease the pain of the wrong election result.

post #368 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. You find the NYT, CNN et al "credible?"

2. Davis was, in fact, a mentor to Obama. Obama speaks of him glowingly in his book, referring to him as "Frank." The two men were close.

3. I may have erred on the "founding" board member thing. They did serve on said board for 3 years together.

4. I am not claiming Obama is a radical like Ayers, Bell and Davis. I'm saying that his past associations concern me. How did these men influence Obama's thinking? What evidence exists that rejected their ideologies? In fact, the evidence shows that Obama embraced at least some of their beliefs. The same applies to Obama's long standing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We don't attribute Wright's disgusting anti-American screeds to Obama, or should we. But asking how and why Obama tolerated such comments over a long period of time is perfectly legitimate.

 

1.  Compared to Canada Free Press and American Thinker? I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark on that one.

 

2.  He visited him on several occasions to ask his advice. Not my idea of "close" or "mentor", but you may have had different experiences.

 

3.  You think Obama should have quit the board immediately that Ayers joined, to avoid criticism?

 

4.  Do you worry about the books that politicians have read, the movies they have seen, the places they have visited? All those things that influence everyone's thinking. Now you want proof that he rejected their ideologies? Do you think that maybe you are being just a tiny bit unreasonable? I guess there's nothing like a good witch hunt to ease the pain of the wrong election result.

 

muppetry, I'd encourage you to start a thread where some unbias news can be posted. It doesn't have to be in depth discussion or anything like that. However someone like yourself should assume responsibility for providing it because the apparent claim by you and perhaps others of your persuasion is that Republicans are suffering from GIGO. They go to the wrong places, get the wrong information and then come to the wrong conclusion. They do this not because they are rich, stupid, employed, white, racist, sexist males, but because they just get bad information.

 

So honestly shouldn't folks like yourself be responsible for helping to pop that bubble? Shouldn't you assume responsibility for getting the good word out there and finding some unbiased and credible sources that will persuade beyond the core support of Democrats?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #369 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1.  Compared to Canada Free Press and American Thinker? I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark on that one.

 

2.  He visited him on several occasions to ask his advice. Not my idea of "close" or "mentor", but you may have had different experiences.

 

3.  You think Obama should have quit the board immediately that Ayers joined, to avoid criticism?

 

4.  Do you worry about the books that politicians have read, the movies they have seen, the places they have visited? All those things that influence everyone's thinking. Now you want proof that he rejected their ideologies? Do you think that maybe you are being just a tiny bit unreasonable? I guess there's nothing like a good witch hunt to ease the pain of the wrong election result.

 

1.  The NYT and CNN are nothing but liberal mouthpieces.  They are large, but not even close to credible anymore.  

 

2.  Prove that's all the relationship was. 

 

3.  I don't think that, no.  

 

4.  I don't think movies, books and places visited equate with association with radical individuals.  Obama demonstrated a pattern--in word and deed--of at least "experimenting" with these ideologies.  Yet there is no evidence he ever rejected them.  

 

As for your comment about the election, it's simply a cheap shot.  Obama has past associations with radical, racist individuals.  That was true before the election, and it's true after.  The fact is that people like you simply don't care.  Nor does the leftwing media.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #370 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

1. Speaking as a conservative, I reject those who reject science.

So you reject Marco Rubio?  Good to know.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #371 of 455

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First he wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit. He signed it into existence. 

 

Incorrect. It was Fiscal Year 2009 that had the first trillion dollar deficit. Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1st, 2008 thru September 30th, 2009 (as the federal fiscal year always does), and was the final Bush administration budget. It was George W. Bush that was signing all of the appropriations bills during 2008 that would enable the Fiscal Year 2009 spending.

post #372 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

Incorrect. It was Fiscal Year 2009 that had the first trillion dollar deficit. Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1st, 2008 thru September 30th, 2009 (as the federal fiscal year always does), and was the final Bush administration budget. It was George W. Bush that was signing all of the appropriations bills during 2008 that would enable the Fiscal Year 2009 spending.

 

 

That would set up the deficit the GOP would then blame entirely on Obama.

 

How did Bush arrange to have those wars paid for, again?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #373 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. You find the NYT, CNN et al "credible?"

2. Davis was, in fact, a mentor to Obama. Obama speaks of him glowingly in his book, referring to him as "Frank." The two men were close.

3. I may have erred on the "founding" board member thing. They did serve on said board for 3 years together.

4. I am not claiming Obama is a radical like Ayers, Bell and Davis. I'm saying that his past associations concern me. How did these men influence Obama's thinking? What evidence exists that rejected their ideologies? In fact, the evidence shows that Obama embraced at least some of their beliefs. The same applies to Obama's long standing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We don't attribute Wright's disgusting anti-American screeds to Obama, or should we. But asking how and why Obama tolerated such comments over a long period of time is perfectly legitimate.

 

1.  Compared to Canada Free Press and American Thinker? I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark on that one.

 

2.  He visited him on several occasions to ask his advice. Not my idea of "close" or "mentor", but you may have had different experiences.

 

3.  You think Obama should have quit the board immediately that Ayers joined, to avoid criticism?

 

4.  Do you worry about the books that politicians have read, the movies they have seen, the places they have visited? All those things that influence everyone's thinking. Now you want proof that he rejected their ideologies? Do you think that maybe you are being just a tiny bit unreasonable? I guess there's nothing like a good witch hunt to ease the pain of the wrong election result.

 

muppetry, I'd encourage you to start a thread where some unbias news can be posted. It doesn't have to be in depth discussion or anything like that. However someone like yourself should assume responsibility for providing it because the apparent claim by you and perhaps others of your persuasion is that Republicans are suffering from GIGO. They go to the wrong places, get the wrong information and then come to the wrong conclusion. They do this not because they are rich, stupid, employed, white, racist, sexist males, but because they just get bad information.

 

So honestly shouldn't folks like yourself be responsible for helping to pop that bubble? Shouldn't you assume responsibility for getting the good word out there and finding some unbiased and credible sources that will persuade beyond the core support of Democrats?

 

That's an interesting question. I started reading PO as the election approached to get a feel for arguments on both sides. The discussion forums on most of the news sites do not get into much detail and are mostly polarized and ugly. What I found here was that there is obviously polarization, with a mixture of reasonable and unreasonable argument on both sides. I'd say that some of the more right-wing posters (yourself included) are better at arguing than those on the left, and the discussions often seemed imbalanced as a result, which is why I find myself arguing one way more often than the other. You may have noticed that all the recent new contributors have been doing the same.

 

But if your observation is that I'm not contributing new discussion topics then I would have to admit that you are correct - I seem to be more in the logic and fact check role. Part of the reason is that I'm not a Democrat and I don't have much of a "persuasion" - you may recall that I have argued against what I thought were baseless criticisms of Romney when they arose and were not clearly refuted. I'll happily dismantle fallacious arguments on either side as I see them arise. At present, the right-wing contributors who loudly, dismissively and aggressively backed the losing horse appear to be desperately trying to assert that it didn't happen / it doesn't matter / we were robbed / everyone else is stupid etc., etc.. It's embarrassing, a bit obnoxious, and entirely counter-productive.

 

I'm not sure about GIGO. I think that there is significant dissonance in the GOP, and that the party and its supporters are having a tough time adjusting to the changing demographics and increasingly liberal social attitudes. There are clear reservoirs of resistance, but these changes are inevitable and will continue to favor the Democrats. Denial will not work. Arguing that they need a more solidly conservative candidate will not work. It does not mean that conservatism is dead - far from it - but it needs to evolve. As many have pointed out, the GOP is a natural home for many Hispanics / Latinos if only they could adjust their message on some policy issues. The reluctance to separate religion clearly from politics also hurts the GOP. Religious diversity continues to increase, as does the fraction of the population that is eschewing religion entirely. The GOP increasingly looks like a party clinging to past values, and in this election cycle, a party rather out of touch with the electorate. Republicans may feel that they hold the moral high ground, but Democrats clearly hold the pragmatic high ground.

 

The media are dismissed a liberal mouthpieces, which seems to me to result from an inability to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces, although I admit that the news outlets in the US do not go out of their way to make the distinction obvious. Personally, I find the actual news reports from most of the big players, including Fox, to be just fine. The right-wing propaganda sites are a joke; there may be left-wing equivalents, but I haven't seen them. What continues to annoy me most is the seemingly rabid desire to portray Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, as purveyors of the demise of the United States, if not the world. One may disagree with the social or economic policies of the party in the White House, but the clumsy and obvious distortions of the truth that are continuously generated and circulated are dishonest and counter-productive. My junk mailboxes fill up with this crap, and it is almost entirely right-wing nonsense. Very little left-wing nonsense. Actually none at all, to be honest. And then these same "talking points" end up on here being quoted as "facts" or "evidence". That's what drives me to post - I'm not trying to convert anyone.

post #374 of 455

Squirrel!

post #375 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1.  Compared to Canada Free Press and American Thinker? I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark on that one.

 

2.  He visited him on several occasions to ask his advice. Not my idea of "close" or "mentor", but you may have had different experiences.

 

3.  You think Obama should have quit the board immediately that Ayers joined, to avoid criticism?

 

4.  Do you worry about the books that politicians have read, the movies they have seen, the places they have visited? All those things that influence everyone's thinking. Now you want proof that he rejected their ideologies? Do you think that maybe you are being just a tiny bit unreasonable? I guess there's nothing like a good witch hunt to ease the pain of the wrong election result.

 

1.  The NYT and CNN are nothing but liberal mouthpieces.  They are large, but not even close to credible anymore.  

 

2.  Prove that's all the relationship was. 

 

3.  I don't think that, no.  

 

4.  I don't think movies, books and places visited equate with association with radical individuals.  Obama demonstrated a pattern--in word and deed--of at least "experimenting" with these ideologies.  Yet there is no evidence he ever rejected them.  

 

As for your comment about the election, it's simply a cheap shot.  Obama has past associations with radical, racist individuals.  That was true before the election, and it's true after.  The fact is that people like you simply don't care.  Nor does the leftwing media.  

 

Now I'm curious. What would you suggest as a credible news source? And why, exactly, is it up to me to prove anything here? You made the assertions with no evidence beyond articles in two undisguised right-wing websites. Talk about mouthpieces. And you are correct - I don't care at all about what appears to me to be an entirely manufactured issue. Bring me some real evidence to suggest something that we should be concerned about instead of grubbing around in the dirt looking for crumbs to support your unshakeable belief that Obama is a bad guy.

 

And the election comment was a grandiosely expensive shot compared to the ones that you are taking.

post #376 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I'm curious. What would you suggest as a credible news source? And why, exactly, is it up to me to prove anything here? You made the assertions with no evidence beyond articles in two undisguised right-wing websites. Talk about mouthpieces. And you are correct - I don't care at all about what appears to me to be an entirely manufactured issue. Bring me some real evidence to suggest something that we should be concerned about instead of grubbing around in the dirt looking for crumbs to support your unshakeable belief that Obama is a bad guy.

 

And the election comment was a grandiosely expensive shot compared to the ones that you are taking.

 

I'm not claiming all the links I used were neutral.   That being said, you are hellbent on attacking the source rather than presenting facts that counter mine.  A website having a particular point of view is not objectionable and doesn't make everything contained on it automatically invalid.   As for the New York Times and CNN, I repeat:  They are left wing outlets.  They are part of the same media establishment created the phony "capacity vs. character" debate in the 2000 election....the same on that challenged George Bush in press conferences to the point of being nearly disrespectful...the same one that did absolutely no work in vetting then candidate Obama....the same one that largely ignored Libya...the same one that ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal for 14 days....the same one that knowingly used fake documents to discredit former President Bush's service in the National Guard.   So please...don't tell me about the NYT and CNN.  On this issue in particular they are not credible.  

 

The election comment was childish,as is your fingers-in-ears approach concerning questions about the President's past.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #377 of 455

So let's parse this out.

 

"Left wing media" (corporate owned behemoths) -- not credible for reasons.

The right wing blogosphere -- Biased, but whoa whoa, let's not shoot the messenger here.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #378 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I'm curious. What would you suggest as a credible news source? And why, exactly, is it up to me to prove anything here? You made the assertions with no evidence beyond articles in two undisguised right-wing websites. Talk about mouthpieces. And you are correct - I don't care at all about what appears to me to be an entirely manufactured issue. Bring me some real evidence to suggest something that we should be concerned about instead of grubbing around in the dirt looking for crumbs to support your unshakeable belief that Obama is a bad guy.

 

And the election comment was a grandiosely expensive shot compared to the ones that you are taking.

 

I'm not claiming all the links I used were neutral.   That being said, you are hellbent on attacking the source rather than presenting facts that counter mine.  A website having a particular point of view is not objectionable and doesn't make everything contained on it automatically invalid.   As for the New York Times and CNN, I repeat:  They are left wing outlets.  They are part of the same media establishment created the phony "capacity vs. character" debate in the 2000 election....the same on that challenged George Bush in press conferences to the point of being nearly disrespectful...the same one that did absolutely no work in vetting then candidate Obama....the same one that largely ignored Libya...the same one that ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal for 14 days....the same one that knowingly used fake documents to discredit former President Bush's service in the National Guard.   So please...don't tell me about the NYT and CNN.  On this issue in particular they are not credible.  

 

The election comment was childish,as is your fingers-in-ears approach concerning questions about the President's past.  

 

Sorry about that. I didn't realize that you had presented any facts. And you forgot to mention what you regard as a credible news source. We're not going to get far with the premise that Canada Free Press and American Thinker are credible news sources while NYT, CNN etc. are not.

post #379 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

That would set up the deficit the GOP would then blame entirely on Obama.

 

How did Bush arrange to have those wars paid for, again?

 

Obama was not responsible for the first deficit he was handed.  It's what he did afterwards that is the issue.   The notion that somehow Bush paid for two wars and Medicare on a "credit card" that he then handed to Obama is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.  First, the primary driver of the deficit is neither those wars, nor the Medicare Rx benefit.  Secondly, the actual FY 2008 deficit was $434 Billion.  In 2007, it was only $161 Billion.   

 

The deficit has been driven by several things.  First, emergency financial crisis spending and stimulus spending.  Second, loss of revenue due to recession.  Third, general expansion of federal spending.   Bush can be "blamed" for some of #1, particularly with TARP and other measures taken during 2008.  Obama can be blamed for the stimulus bill and other recession-related spending.  The loss of revenue is not really anyone's fault per se, though it's popular to blame the Bush Administration for the financial crisis and recession, which it had nothing to do with causing.  The general expansion of federal spending is unquestionably Obama's fault, from the expansion of public assistance, to bailouts since he took office, to Obamacare.  It's also true that he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Even if you blame Bush for $1 Trillion deficits, that didn't even come close to happening.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #380 of 455

Double posty goodness!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #381 of 455

Still repeating the lies from the bubble.

 

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

 

 

 

Quote:

 In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

 In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

 In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

 In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

 Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

 

 

And, from politifact, here are the inflation adjusted budget changes year to year.

 

 

 

Quote:

Here are the results using inflation-adjusted figures:

 

President

Fiscal year baseline

Last fiscal year

Average percentage increase per year

Johnson 1964 1969 6.3
George W. Bush 2001 2009 5.9
Kennedy 1961 1964 4.7
Carter 1977 1981 4.2
Nixon 1969 1975 3.0
Reagan 1981 1989 2.7
George H.W. Bush 1989 1993 1.8
Clinton 1993 2001 1.5
Obama 2009 2013 -0.1
Eisenhower 1953 1961 -0.5

 

It's a revenue problem--not a spending one.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #382 of 455
Thread Starter 

I love watching liberals argue that Obama has not presided over a massive increase in spending.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #383 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I love watching liberals argue that Obama has not presided over a massive increase in spending.  

 

I enjoy watching scientists argue that the earth was not created 10000 years ago. What's your point?

post #384 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I love watching liberals argue that Obama has not presided over a massive increase in spending.  

The numbers don't lie.  You do.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #385 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First he wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit. He signed it into existence. 

 

Incorrect. It was Fiscal Year 2009 that had the first trillion dollar deficit. Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1st, 2008 thru September 30th, 2009 (as the federal fiscal year always does), and was the final Bush administration budget. It was George W. Bush that was signing all of the appropriations bills during 2008 that would enable the Fiscal Year 2009 spending.

 

It ran from that time frame in terms of what the legislation covers. However who passed the legislation and who signed it remains as I stated. Obama signed 9 of 12 appropriations bills for FY2009. He did so because they were late, stuffed with pork and the Democratic House and Senate knew Bush wouldn't sign them and in fact threatened a veto of them. Get your history straight.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's an interesting question. I started reading PO as the election approached to get a feel for arguments on both sides. The discussion forums on most of the news sites do not get into much detail and are mostly polarized and ugly. What I found here was that there is obviously polarization, with a mixture of reasonable and unreasonable argument on both sides. I'd say that some of the more right-wing posters (yourself included) are better at arguing than those on the left, and the discussions often seemed imbalanced as a result, which is why I find myself arguing one way more often than the other. You may have noticed that all the recent new contributors have been doing the same.

 

Are you contending the new contributors are posting in a style similar to yourself, or the the prior participants on left or right? The other bits are appreciated in understanding why you do what you do.

Quote:
But if your observation is that I'm not contributing new discussion topics then I would have to admit that you are correct - I seem to be more in the logic and fact check role. Part of the reason is that I'm not a Democrat and I don't have much of a "persuasion" - you may recall that I have argued against what I thought were baseless criticisms of Romney when they arose and were not clearly refuted. I'll happily dismantle fallacious arguments on either side as I see them arise. At present, the right-wing contributors who loudly, dismissively and aggressively backed the losing horse appear to be desperately trying to assert that it didn't happen / it doesn't matter / we were robbed / everyone else is stupid etc., etc.. It's embarrassing, a bit obnoxious, and entirely counter-productive.


I can see your point a bit but I can also understand where they are coming from as well. The point can and will remain that no one simply lies down for someone else even when there is a loss. People continue doing what they do and eventually a decision will be made again one way or another. With our system of checks and balances people want to make it sound like someone has one or lost a championship game when in reality it is more like they gained or lost yardage in a(n) (American) football game.

 

Honestly most of the threads around here have claimed that Obama has a strengthened position and that he should get more of what he wants and while he did get reelected, his position was far from strengthened and his agenda, what can be divined of it, is far from endorsed.

 

The thing that really is counter-productive though is to take a snapshot and make it a movie. There are tremendous amounts of money to be repaid, massive quantities of spending that cannot continue and additionally, this fiscal, which is really a tax crisis is coming do with TAXES threatening to destroy the current growth of the U.S. economy. It's sort of a serious matter and it's worth being cranky over.

Quote:
I'm not sure about GIGO. I think that there is significant dissonance in the GOP, and that the party and its supporters are having a tough time adjusting to the changing demographics and increasingly liberal social attitudes. There are clear reservoirs of resistance, but these changes are inevitable and will continue to favor the Democrats. Denial will not work. Arguing that they need a more solidly conservative candidate will not work. It does not mean that conservatism is dead - far from it - but it needs to evolve. As many have pointed out, the GOP is a natural home for many Hispanics / Latinos if only they could adjust their message on some policy issues. The reluctance to separate religion clearly from politics also hurts the GOP. Religious diversity continues to increase, as does the fraction of the population that is eschewing religion entirely. The GOP increasingly looks like a party clinging to past values, and in this election cycle, a party rather out of touch with the electorate. Republicans may feel that they hold the moral high ground, but Democrats clearly hold the pragmatic high ground.

 

I concede part of what you say is true but what is also true, and this is a strong part of the ignorance within those changing demographics is that being that demographic doesn't automatically make one intelligent, hard working, enlightened, correct, etc. That is a core and profound dissonance within the left side. You actually hear the reasoning put forth, "This wouldn't happen if we had diversity" or "this wouldn't happen if women were running things", etc.

 

Those things are simply not true.

 

Likewise the ability to generate jobs, or make things add up doesn't change because the color, sex or ethnicity changes. In fact what is particular troubling is that some of these ethnic groups have a history of endorsing charismatic dictators or at a minimum, very authoritarian leaders. When you look at Mexico, Central and South America as an example, you don't see a lot of representative democracy and good results for the downtrodden. Suggesting that if the electorate here becomes more like the electorate in those countries, we will magically get a better result is a pure fallacy. We can say the same for African-American leadership in African American neighborhoods, cities districts and even large portions of certain states and can also say that for the countries within Africa itself if we care to dive as far as that.

 

So when we look at what cobbles the left together, it appears to be a radically divergent groups of people and when we ask what brings them together beyond claims of oppression and a desire for financial redress, we don't see much in common. There isn't a core there to adjust. There isn't a way forward beyond, these people are racist and bad, we give you things today without thought for tomorrow, give us your votes.

Quote:

The media are dismissed a liberal mouthpieces, which seems to me to result from an inability to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces, although I admit that the news outlets in the US do not go out of their way to make the distinction obvious. Personally, I find the actual news reports from most of the big players, including Fox, to be just fine. The right-wing propaganda sites are a joke; there may be left-wing equivalents, but I haven't seen them. What continues to annoy me most is the seemingly rabid desire to portray Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, as purveyors of the demise of the United States, if not the world. One may disagree with the social or economic policies of the party in the White House, but the clumsy and obvious distortions of the truth that are continuously generated and circulated are dishonest and counter-productive. My junk mailboxes fill up with this crap, and it is almost entirely right-wing nonsense. Very little left-wing nonsense. Actually none at all, to be honest. And then these same "talking points" end up on here being quoted as "facts" or "evidence". That's what drives me to post - I'm not trying to convert anyone.

 

 

Well take what I discussed above, run it down the line a bit and get to a state where the reasoning is circular, the result is terrible and there is no way out of the circular reasoning. Perhaps I'm a little ahead in the game because I live in California. In California white males and whites as a whole are a minority majority. They are the largest minority group in which no group is a majority. Whites were 45% of the population last I checked. The state is hopelessly broke. Our unemployment rate is several points higher than the national average. The Republican Party due to demographics and also due to media demonization (it is a media center as are all blue states coincidentally) is not a major player and reduced to the sort of role Republicans played after Watergate. They can offer token resistance at best.

 

The state is a giant mess and it becomes laughable to continue to blame it on what amounts to 22% of the population (aka white males.) We have free tuition and financial for illegal immigrants, we have green industries a plenty wherever they can get past environmental lawsuits. We engage in minimal to no oil drilling. We have a Democratic executive branch and Democratic majorities that are now super majorities in both parts of the  legislative branch. (Assembly and Senate)

 

The problems haven't gone away. They have only grown worse. The state has the most progressive and highest state income and sale taxes in the nation all so we can be the most broke state with the worst credit rating. (Illinois is similar) We can build bullet trains while we are broke. We can offer everything to 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients. The problem is always someone else and never the party or the policy.

 

In short we are the blue utopia where the WASP's and all their ignorant ways and claims are banished and the result isn't utopia but a doubling down on the misery.

 

If we double down on the problems we have at the federal level, the U.S. as we currently know it wont' survive. I can fully understand that there is nuttiness on both sides and some are more concerned with motivations than actions.

 

I mean look at the left. They are saying things like spending cuts, balancing budgets, etc are racial code words. That is crazy. It is so nutty that of course people encountering it are going to think that no one would say it and have the best interests of a nation at heart. How can someone have the best interests at stake when they say the numbers don't have to add up when the faces are brown or the gender is female or that caring, empathy and other traits are exclusive to certain sexes or cultures? Again it becomes a strange circular logic that cannot be penetrated. It is vote your skin or your gender instead of vote your pocketbook or the reality in front of you. That is very much not in the interest of anyone let alone our nation.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #386 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First he wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit. He signed it into existence. 

 

Incorrect. It was Fiscal Year 2009 that had the first trillion dollar deficit. Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1st, 2008 thru September 30th, 2009 (as the federal fiscal year always does), and was the final Bush administration budget. It was George W. Bush that was signing all of the appropriations bills during 2008 that would enable the Fiscal Year 2009 spending.

 

It ran from that time frame in terms of what the legislation covers. However who passed the legislation and who signed it remains as I stated. Obama signed 9 of 12 appropriations bills for FY2009. He did so because they were late, stuffed with pork and the Democratic House and Senate knew Bush wouldn't sign them and in fact threatened a veto of them. Get your history straight.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's an interesting question. I started reading PO as the election approached to get a feel for arguments on both sides. The discussion forums on most of the news sites do not get into much detail and are mostly polarized and ugly. What I found here was that there is obviously polarization, with a mixture of reasonable and unreasonable argument on both sides. I'd say that some of the more right-wing posters (yourself included) are better at arguing than those on the left, and the discussions often seemed imbalanced as a result, which is why I find myself arguing one way more often than the other. You may have noticed that all the recent new contributors have been doing the same.

 

Are you contending the new contributors are posting in a style similar to yourself, or the the prior participants on left or right? The other bits are appreciated in understanding why you do what you do.

Quote:
But if your observation is that I'm not contributing new discussion topics then I would have to admit that you are correct - I seem to be more in the logic and fact check role. Part of the reason is that I'm not a Democrat and I don't have much of a "persuasion" - you may recall that I have argued against what I thought were baseless criticisms of Romney when they arose and were not clearly refuted. I'll happily dismantle fallacious arguments on either side as I see them arise. At present, the right-wing contributors who loudly, dismissively and aggressively backed the losing horse appear to be desperately trying to assert that it didn't happen / it doesn't matter / we were robbed / everyone else is stupid etc., etc.. It's embarrassing, a bit obnoxious, and entirely counter-productive.


I can see your point a bit but I can also understand where they are coming from as well. The point can and will remain that no one simply lies down for someone else even when there is a loss. People continue doing what they do and eventually a decision will be made again one way or another. With our system of checks and balances people want to make it sound like someone has one or lost a championship game when in reality it is more like they gained or lost yardage in a(n) (American) football game.

 

Honestly most of the threads around here have claimed that Obama has a strengthened position and that he should get more of what he wants and while he did get reelected, his position was far from strengthened and his agenda, what can be divined of it, is far from endorsed.

 

The thing that really is counter-productive though is to take a snapshot and make it a movie. There are tremendous amounts of money to be repaid, massive quantities of spending that cannot continue and additionally, this fiscal, which is really a tax crisis is coming do with TAXES threatening to destroy the current growth of the U.S. economy. It's sort of a serious matter and it's worth being cranky over.

Quote:
I'm not sure about GIGO. I think that there is significant dissonance in the GOP, and that the party and its supporters are having a tough time adjusting to the changing demographics and increasingly liberal social attitudes. There are clear reservoirs of resistance, but these changes are inevitable and will continue to favor the Democrats. Denial will not work. Arguing that they need a more solidly conservative candidate will not work. It does not mean that conservatism is dead - far from it - but it needs to evolve. As many have pointed out, the GOP is a natural home for many Hispanics / Latinos if only they could adjust their message on some policy issues. The reluctance to separate religion clearly from politics also hurts the GOP. Religious diversity continues to increase, as does the fraction of the population that is eschewing religion entirely. The GOP increasingly looks like a party clinging to past values, and in this election cycle, a party rather out of touch with the electorate. Republicans may feel that they hold the moral high ground, but Democrats clearly hold the pragmatic high ground.

 

I concede part of what you say is true but what is also true, and this is a strong part of the ignorance within those changing demographics is that being that demographic doesn't automatically make one intelligent, hard working, enlightened, correct, etc. That is a core and profound dissonance within the left side. You actually hear the reasoning put forth, "This wouldn't happen if we had diversity" or "this wouldn't happen if women were running things", etc.

 

Those things are simply not true.

 

Likewise the ability to generate jobs, or make things add up doesn't change because the color, sex or ethnicity changes. In fact what is particular troubling is that some of these ethnic groups have a history of endorsing charismatic dictators or at a minimum, very authoritarian leaders. When you look at Mexico, Central and South America as an example, you don't see a lot of representative democracy and good results for the downtrodden. Suggesting that if the electorate here becomes more like the electorate in those countries, we will magically get a better result is a pure fallacy. We can say the same for African-American leadership in African American neighborhoods, cities districts and even large portions of certain states and can also say that for the countries within Africa itself if we care to dive as far as that.

 

So when we look at what cobbles the left together, it appears to be a radically divergent groups of people and when we ask what brings them together beyond claims of oppression and a desire for financial redress, we don't see much in common. There isn't a core there to adjust. There isn't a way forward beyond, these people are racist and bad, we give you things today without thought for tomorrow, give us your votes.

Quote:

The media are dismissed a liberal mouthpieces, which seems to me to result from an inability to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces, although I admit that the news outlets in the US do not go out of their way to make the distinction obvious. Personally, I find the actual news reports from most of the big players, including Fox, to be just fine. The right-wing propaganda sites are a joke; there may be left-wing equivalents, but I haven't seen them. What continues to annoy me most is the seemingly rabid desire to portray Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, as purveyors of the demise of the United States, if not the world. One may disagree with the social or economic policies of the party in the White House, but the clumsy and obvious distortions of the truth that are continuously generated and circulated are dishonest and counter-productive. My junk mailboxes fill up with this crap, and it is almost entirely right-wing nonsense. Very little left-wing nonsense. Actually none at all, to be honest. And then these same "talking points" end up on here being quoted as "facts" or "evidence". That's what drives me to post - I'm not trying to convert anyone.

 

 

Well take what I discussed above, run it down the line a bit and get to a state where the reasoning is circular, the result is terrible and there is no way out of the circular reasoning. Perhaps I'm a little ahead in the game because I live in California. In California white males and whites as a whole are a minority majority. They are the largest minority group in which no group is a majority. Whites were 45% of the population last I checked. The state is hopelessly broke. Our unemployment rate is several points higher than the national average. The Republican Party due to demographics and also due to media demonization (it is a media center as are all blue states coincidentally) is not a major player and reduced to the sort of role Republicans played after Watergate. They can offer token resistance at best.

 

The state is a giant mess and it becomes laughable to continue to blame it on what amounts to 22% of the population (aka white males.) We have free tuition and financial for illegal immigrants, we have green industries a plenty wherever they can get past environmental lawsuits. We engage in minimal to no oil drilling. We have a Democratic executive branch and Democratic majorities that are now super majorities in both parts of the  legislative branch. (Assembly and Senate)

 

The problems haven't gone away. They have only grown worse. The state has the most progressive and highest state income and sale taxes in the nation all so we can be the most broke state with the worst credit rating. (Illinois is similar) We can build bullet trains while we are broke. We can offer everything to 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients. The problem is always someone else and never the party or the policy.

 

In short we are the blue utopia where the WASP's and all their ignorant ways and claims are banished and the result isn't utopia but a doubling down on the misery.

 

If we double down on the problems we have at the federal level, the U.S. as we currently know it wont' survive. I can fully understand that there is nuttiness on both sides and some are more concerned with motivations than actions.

 

I mean look at the left. They are saying things like spending cuts, balancing budgets, etc are racial code words. That is crazy. It is so nutty that of course people encountering it are going to think that no one would say it and have the best interests of a nation at heart. How can someone have the best interests at stake when they say the numbers don't have to add up when the faces are brown or the gender is female or that caring, empathy and other traits are exclusive to certain sexes or cultures? Again it becomes a strange circular logic that cannot be penetrated. It is vote your skin or your gender instead of vote your pocketbook or the reality in front of you. That is very much not in the interest of anyone let alone our nation.

 

Good post. Not much to disagree with there. I think that you accurately pointed out some weaknesses that clearly exist in some of the left wing positions, but I think that the Democrats are quite aware of those and working to address them. Similarly, I think that many Republicans are aware of the issues on the right. A difference is that some of those right wing positions are hurting them much more than the left wing issues are hurting the Democrats, for obvious reasons. And all that in the context that I think it is obvious that the US Government is hugely inefficient and bureaucracy-ridden, but that's a different problem.

 

I agree that Obama does not have an ironclad mandate to do what he wants, but he did win the only element of the election that is national and so we must presume that it represents some kind of expression of preference for his current policies over those proposed by the Republicans. I'm still not convinced by the high tax arguments. Taxes are not high in comparison to historical rates. I'm hopeful that over the next couple of months we see some real attempts to compromise on both sides - in line with the sentiments that have been expressed recently by Boehner and Obama.

post #387 of 455

The proposition system in California combined with Prop 13 fucked things up.  We will see what happens with a California Democrat supermajority.  Muppet, you are a self-proclaimed fact and logic checker on these boards.  Yet, I'm seeing you give the conservatives a lot of credit for arguments that look nice on the surface but are severely flawed when you look closer.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #388 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The proposition system in California combined with Prop 13 fucked things up.  We will see what happens with a California Democrat supermajority.  Muppet, you are a self-proclaimed fact and logic checker on these boards.  Yet, I'm seeing you give the conservatives a lot of credit for arguments that look nice on the surface but are severely flawed when you look closer.  

 

Unfortunately I'm pretty ignorant of the situation in California, so quite useless as a fact checker on that. I can barely keep up with national politics, let alone the local kind. And don't misunderstand me - I don't claim to be a comprehensive fact checker - I just selectively call out stuff that catches my attention.

post #389 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The proposition system in California combined with Prop 13 fucked things up.  We will see what happens with a California Democrat supermajority.  Muppet, you are a self-proclaimed fact and logic checker on these boards.  Yet, I'm seeing you give the conservatives a lot of credit for arguments that look nice on the surface but are severely flawed when you look closer.  

 

Perhaps he doesn't want to come across as a fool or a tool. You just mentioned the lie that President Obama isn't responsible for any of the blow-out spending gains for FY2009 as an example when he signed 9 out of 12 bills and they were passed during the time he was president. It is ridiculous to assert such things. It is against a fact based reality and those who would repeat it are treating their political parties like their church.

 

Since you hate it when people just repeat platitudes based on faith, check your faith at the door and stop ignoring counter-arguments that are put to you. President Obama is responsible for every bit of spending he signed during FY2009. The lack of growth after that is based on the fact that he had already ramped spending up to nearly 25% of GDP with the help of a Democratic House and Senate.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #390 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The proposition system in California combined with Prop 13 fucked things up.  We will see what happens with a California Democrat supermajority.  Muppet, you are a self-proclaimed fact and logic checker on these boards.  Yet, I'm seeing you give the conservatives a lot of credit for arguments that look nice on the surface but are severely flawed when you look closer.  

 

Perhaps he doesn't want to come across as a fool or a tool. You just mentioned the lie that President Obama isn't responsible for any of the blow-out spending gains for FY2009 as an example when he signed 9 out of 12 bills and they were passed during the time he was president. It is ridiculous to assert such things. It is against a fact based reality and those who would repeat it are treating their political parties like their church.

 

Since you hate it when people just repeat platitudes based on faith, check your faith at the door and stop ignoring counter-arguments that are put to you. President Obama is responsible for every bit of spending he signed during FY2009. The lack of growth after that is based on the fact that he had already ramped spending up to nearly 25% of GDP with the help of a Democratic House and Senate.

  

It does seem to me that there is a bit of misrepresentation from both sides here. Yes - it's true that Bush only signed 3 of the 12 finance bills for FY2009, but they were big ones, leading to a projected deficit even before Obama took office of over $1.2T. The bills that Obama subsequently signed did add to the total spending - around $200B or so out of a total federal budget of around $3.5T. Maybe he could have done more to reduce spending, but that was not the course of action that they chose to fight the financial crisis.

post #391 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The proposition system in California combined with Prop 13 fucked things up.  We will see what happens with a California Democrat supermajority.  Muppet, you are a self-proclaimed fact and logic checker on these boards.  Yet, I'm seeing you give the conservatives a lot of credit for arguments that look nice on the surface but are severely flawed when you look closer.  

 

Perhaps he doesn't want to come across as a fool or a tool. You just mentioned the lie that President Obama isn't responsible for any of the blow-out spending gains for FY2009 as an example when he signed 9 out of 12 bills and they were passed during the time he was president. It is ridiculous to assert such things. It is against a fact based reality and those who would repeat it are treating their political parties like their church.

 

Since you hate it when people just repeat platitudes based on faith, check your faith at the door and stop ignoring counter-arguments that are put to you. President Obama is responsible for every bit of spending he signed during FY2009. The lack of growth after that is based on the fact that he had already ramped spending up to nearly 25% of GDP with the help of a Democratic House and Senate.

  

It does seem to me that there is a bit of misrepresentation from both sides here. Yes - it's true that Bush only signed 3 of the 12 finance bills for FY2009, but they were big ones, leading to a projected deficit even before Obama took office of over $1.2T. The bills that Obama subsequently signed did add to the total spending - around $200B or so out of a total federal budget of around $3.5T. Maybe he could have done more to reduce spending, but that was not the course of action that they chose to fight the financial crisis.

 

I've read several different interpretations of this and many of them assign different values to different bills, etc. Given the disagreement there, we should probably look at the following.

 

What did Obama do different when he became president and fully in control of the process?

How did Obama, as a Senator vote on some of these very large spending bills that were caught in the middle of the action taking place between the two presidencies?

 

When we look at the argument that Obama wasn't responsible but then see him borrowing more in four years than Bush did in 8 years, including the disputed FY2009 year, then that points to a problem. When we look at the bills in FY2009 that dramatically increased spending, some perhaps signed by Bush, some signed by Obama, others revisited by Obama, we don't see him as a Senator voting against them. He voted for them. This isn't a man that was being dragged into the spending and changed what was happening when he finally got presidential power.

 

He voted yea for TARP as an example. Bush signed it and all the cost for it was assigned to FY2009 but the repayment of it was assigned back to other FY years. If one is being honest, the repayment should deduct from the initial outlay.

 

Either way, we can assign blame or we can say what is being done different now. It is ridiculous to argue that when a man borrows an additional $5 trillion dollars that it is because the prior guy borrowed $1 trillion dollars. If you tried it in any other aspect of reasoning it would be laughed away.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #392 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

And that is the problem.  I don't feel like I do simply because the other guy won, or just that I strongly disagree with the President.  The majority of people are now takers instead of makers (how ironic that Romney's 47% comment was dead-on). They clearly expressed they don't care about deficits, national security or promises kept.  They care about More Free Crap™ and the first black President.  That's who we are now.  Self-reliance, hard work and risk taking are dead.  Entitlement is alive.  The country is lost, and this election proves it.  

 

 

 

Obama doesn't have to do anything.  The damage is done, as I explained above.  The problem is not with the man that holds the office, but is clearly the nation that elected him.  


It would have helped if the Republican party fielded a candidate who was in touch with his constituents.  And here's a wake-up call for you, Romney's 13% effective tax rate means that he got much "More Free Crap" in any recent year than any of us will see in a lifetime.  How gullible can voters be when an unemployed veteran or a senior citizen scraping buy on Social Security is viewed as a freeloader but "Mitt the Job Creator" is considered a hero for getting a tax break for his wife's dancing horse?

 

Rove and Co. made "entitlements" the bogeyman this year.  That doesn't mean the country is unrecognizable.  Four years ago everyone was panicking that Obama was "gonna take our guns" or "force us to be Muslims" or some other nonsense.

 

Here's a wake-up call.  I didn't support a war that put us into enormous debt, but you know what, when you live in a country with 300 million people not every decision will go your way, not every policy is one you can stand behind 100%.  It's called Democracy, not "my way only."

post #393 of 455
I am a social democrat who believes Israel is acting in pure evilness against the Palestinians, I believe every nation should provide non means-tested health care to everyone, paid for by taxes on the rich, and I believe the US constitution should be amended to greatly restrict and regulate firearms.

SDW and I have both been members of political discussion boards on Appleinsider for something like ten years or more.

If SDW ever runs for public office, he could claim that he disagreed with me. Fine.

How about when asked about agreeing/disagreeing with a number of self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists who want to dissolve 95% of the US government (that's more radical than Ayers' aspirations ever were)?

I think a number of people would be concerned about those associations.

Oh, and Dick Cheney was best friends with Saddam Hussein, Mitt Romney pushed cigarettes on children in Russia, and Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran when they were our enemy.

Guilt by association. Is not guilt.

Anyone looking for "associations" to condemn someone, or birth certificates, or transcripts or military records... Is simply unable to accept the fact that what's important is record.
post #394 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post


It would have helped if the Republican party fielded a candidate who was in touch with his constituents.  And here's a wake-up call for you, Romney's 13% effective tax rate means that he got much "More Free Crap" in any recent year than any of us will see in a lifetime.  How gullible can voters be when an unemployed veteran or a senior citizen scraping buy on Social Security is viewed as a freeloader but "Mitt the Job Creator" is considered a hero for getting a tax break for his wife's dancing horse?

 

That is a very odd point of view.  Romney got "free crap" because he paid 13% in taxes?  Even if we pretend this is far less than the middle class pays (it's not, by the way), you're forgetting that Romney paid millions in taxes.  And no, Romney did not at any time refer to those on SS as freeloaders.  His 47% comments were ill-advised and conflated a few groups, but he didn't mean that.  And I think you know it.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Rove and Co. made "entitlements" the bogeyman this year.  That doesn't mean the country is unrecognizable.  Four years ago everyone was panicking that Obama was "gonna take our guns" or "force us to be Muslims" or some other nonsense.

 

The boogeyman?  Social Security and Medicare (and other programs) are both on unsustainable paths.  Do you deny this?  

 

 

Quote:
Here's a wake-up call.  I didn't support a war that put us into enormous debt, but you know what, when you live in a country with 300 million people not every decision will go your way, not every policy is one you can stand behind 100%.  It's called Democracy, not "my way only."

 

I wish I had a nickel for every time I read a comment like that.  For last time:  The Iraq War did not "put us into enormous debt."  Nor did Afghanistan.  They are not the primary drivers of our deficit, nor overall debt.  Nor are the Bush Tax Cuts.  We have enormous deficits and debt because overall spending has skyrocketed and revenue is not sufficient due to poor growth.   Please...use the wake up call on your self.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am a social democrat who believes Israel is acting in pure evilness against the Palestinians,

 

Yes, you've made that clear.  

 

 

Quote:
I believe every nation should provide non means-tested health care to everyone, paid for by taxes on the rich,

 

I disagree.  And the math doesn't work.  We couldn't pay for non-means tests healthcare for everyone even if we took 100% of every "rich" person's money in America.  

 

Quote:
 and I believe the US constitution should be amended to greatly restrict and regulate firearms.

 

I don't think that will happen, nor am I convinced more regulation would be effective.   It may be effective in other places, but I don't think it would here.  

 

 

Quote:
SDW and I have both been members of political discussion boards on Appleinsider for something like ten years or more.
If SDW ever runs for public office, he could claim that he disagreed with me. Fine.

 

True.  Then again we've never met.  We're not "associated."  

 

 

Quote:

How about when asked about agreeing/disagreeing with a number of self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists who want to dissolve 95% of the US government (that's more radical than Ayers' aspirations ever were)?


I think a number of people would be concerned about those associations.

 

Again, neither of us are "associated" with anyone else here.  One would have to see what each person actually "agreed" with, etc.  

 

 


 

Quote:
Oh, and Dick Cheney was best friends with Saddam Hussein, Mitt Romney pushed cigarettes on children in Russia, and Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran when they were our enemy.
Guilt by association. Is not guilt.
Anyone looking for "associations" to condemn someone, or birth certificates, or transcripts or military records... Is simply unable to accept the fact that what's important is record.

 

I understand your reasoning, but you're making a leap there.  No one (at least, not here) is saying Obama is a communist, or a terrorist, or racist.  What I am saying is that we have a right to be concerned about his past associations with these figures.  It goes to his judgment and his core political, economic and social beliefs.  

 

And the entire issue again exposes the ridiculous double standard in the news media.  Imagine if George Bush had been good friends with a KKK member for 20 years.  Look at what happened when Trent Lott praised the elderly Strom Thurmond on his birthday, a man who had once supported segregation, but then renounced it long before he met Lott.  Take note of how Obama has openly admitted using drugs "enthusiastically" with no media scrutiny whatsoever, and how Bush was hounded about suspected cocaine use despite swearing off everything including alcohol 15 years prior.  

 

The fact is, tonton, that the media doesn't want to know who Obama is, and neither do many Americans.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #395 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post
 
I believe every nation should provide non means-tested health care to everyone, paid for by taxes on the rich,

 

I disagree.  And the math doesn't work.  We couldn't pay for non-means tests healthcare for everyone even if we took 100% of every "rich" person's money in America.  

 

That's odd, because it works just fine in many other countries. What's different here?

post #396 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post


It would have helped if the Republican party fielded a candidate who was in touch with his constituents.  And here's a wake-up call for you, Romney's 13% effective tax rate means that he got much "More Free Crap" in any recent year than any of us will see in a lifetime.  How gullible can voters be when an unemployed veteran or a senior citizen scraping buy on Social Security is viewed as a freeloader but "Mitt the Job Creator" is considered a hero for getting a tax break for his wife's dancing horse?

 

That is a very odd point of view.  Romney got "free crap" because he paid 13% in taxes?  Even if we pretend this is far less than the middle class pays (it's not, by the way), you're forgetting that Romney paid millions in taxes.  And no, Romney did not at any time refer to those on SS as freeloaders.  His 47% comments were ill-advised and conflated a few groups, but he didn't mean that.  And I think you know it.  

 

Isn't that a reference to his comments since the election, rather than the old 47% comment. I have to say though, that while I defended Romney at the time, he has since done a good job of confirming that the criticism he received was appropriate. That aside, I wish I could figure out how to get my tax rate down to 13%.

post #397 of 455
Obama's past "associations" are a concern. But Romney's tax records are a distraction. Riiiight.
post #398 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's odd, because it works just fine in many other countries. What's different here?

 

First, the notion that other nations' health system are paid for by "taxing the rich" is highly flawed.  Taxes tend to be much higher for all.  Secondly, what's different?  For one thing we spend much more on defense (much of it defending Europe), have much greater infrastructure needs, and a much larger population than any single European country.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Isn't that a reference to his comments since the election, rather than the old 47% comment. I have to say though, that while I defended Romney at the time, he has since done a good job of confirming that the criticism he received was appropriate. That aside, I wish I could figure out how to get my tax rate down to 13%.

 

His comments since the election are not entirely wrong.  Obama did a masterful job of courting key constituent groups, often with "gifts" as Romney describes.  As for tax rates, my effective rate is usually lower than 13%, and I am definitely middle income.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama's past "associations" are a concern. But Romney's tax records are a distraction. Riiiight.

 

Non-sequitur.  Those two issues are not related.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #399 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I'm curious. What would you suggest as a credible news source? And why, exactly, is it up to me to prove anything here? You made the assertions with no evidence beyond articles in two undisguised right-wing websites. Talk about mouthpieces. And you are correct - I don't care at all about what appears to me to be an entirely manufactured issue. Bring me some real evidence to suggest something that we should be concerned about instead of grubbing around in the dirt looking for crumbs to support your unshakeable belief that Obama is a bad guy.

 

And the election comment was a grandiosely expensive shot compared to the ones that you are taking.

 

I'm not claiming all the links I used were neutral.   That being said, you are hellbent on attacking the source rather than presenting facts that counter mine.  A website having a particular point of view is not objectionable and doesn't make everything contained on it automatically invalid.   As for the New York Times and CNN, I repeat:  They are left wing outlets.  They are part of the same media establishment created the phony "capacity vs. character" debate in the 2000 election....the same on that challenged George Bush in press conferences to the point of being nearly disrespectful...the same one that did absolutely no work in vetting then candidate Obama....the same one that largely ignored Libya...the same one that ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal for 14 days....the same one that knowingly used fake documents to discredit former President Bush's service in the National Guard.   So please...don't tell me about the NYT and CNN.  On this issue in particular they are not credible.  

 

The election comment was childish,as is your fingers-in-ears approach concerning questions about the President's past.  

 

Quote:

I'm not claiming all the links I used were neutral.

lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #400 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's odd, because it works just fine in many other countries. What's different here?

 

First, the notion that other nations' health system are paid for by "taxing the rich" is highly flawed.  Taxes tend to be much higher for all.  Secondly, what's different?  For one thing we spend much more on defense (much of it defending Europe), have much greater infrastructure needs, and a much larger population than any single European country.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Isn't that a reference to his comments since the election, rather than the old 47% comment. I have to say though, that while I defended Romney at the time, he has since done a good job of confirming that the criticism he received was appropriate. That aside, I wish I could figure out how to get my tax rate down to 13%.

 

His comments since the election are not entirely wrong.  Obama did a masterful job of courting key constituent groups, often with "gifts" as Romney describes.  As for tax rates, my effective rate is usually lower than 13%, and I am definitely middle income.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama's past "associations" are a concern. But Romney's tax records are a distraction. Riiiight.

 

Non-sequitur.  Those two issues are not related.  

 

I didn't realize that you were taking issue with just the taxing the rich bit. Fair enough, but I'm not sure that rates necessarily are higher everywhere else, and I'm not sure that the "much larger population" argument makes much sense either, since that means a much larger tax base. The total defense spending is nearly twice the world average as a percentage of GDP, but still less than 5%, as opposed to the nearly 20% of US GDP spent on healthcare, which is nearly double that spent in Europe and Canada. Double in both %GDP and per capita.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore