Many of the pundits, politicians, and various talking heads from the left immediately received the DNC talking points memo on what their take should be on the event. Okay, not really, but the solidarity from the left immediately in the aftermath of the murderous rampage was definitely impressive. This heinous act was attributed to the right’s incivility in its political discourse. We need to stop with the hate speech, especially from the right side of the political spectrum, we were all subsequently lectured. We need to disagree in an agreeable manner. We all need to be civil. Are you hateful Republicans (I realize that 'hateful' and 'Republican' is redundant to the left) and various conservatives listening? They were talking to YOU!
Fast forward a little over half a year and evidently those appeals to civility in the political process can all be completely abandoned, at least for our brothers and sisters on the left.
President Obama made a beautiful speech right after that horrific event in Tucson last January. He eloquently stated, “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
One can only assume the Obama’s Vice President must not have been listening, or at least did not take to heart the soaring rhetoric towards civility as championed by President Obama that day. Indeed during the fractious debate over the recent debt ceiling situation, Vice President Joe Biden agreed with the vitriolic words spewed from Congressman Mike Doyle’s mouth at a two-hour closed door Democratic caucus meeting the other day when he proclaimed that the Tea Party was nothing more than “terrorists”. So much for civility towards those that think differently than we do.
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room. Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals. So evidently in Representative Doyle’s (D) honorable opinion, a terrorist is someone that won’t let him spend any of the tax-payers' money! Amazing.
One can only imagine the outrage from the statist media and all good folks on the left had Vice President Cheney ever said such things about his political adversaries, and understandably and deservedly so. Indeed they likely would be calling for his resignation, again rightly so. Biden’s latest “gaffe” hardly attracts notice for even a day in contrast. Once again the double standards between the two parties is rather stark in comparison.
Aside from this disgraceful lack of civility, evidently the left has also changed the definition of one of the words in the English language yet again too. Now, according to our Vice President, various other elected Democratic officials, and many in the statist media, a terrorist also has the alternate definition of someone that believes in governing by the dictates of the Constitution, the curtailing of spending money we do not have, and the stopping of the creation of money out of thin air. Indeed, I think we should create a Progressive dictionary to which we could add this entry:
terrorist (noun): 1) a person who supports responsible government, especially regarding budget and debt issues. 2) someone who supports a balanced budget. 3) a Tea Party member. 4) a Republican that is not willing to negotiate their principles. 5) someone who is conservative. 6) anyone who does not support the Obama / Reid / Pelosi liberal agenda.
It is ironic that Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s return and first vote since being shot back in January occurred in the midst of this swirling storm of hateful and uncivil speech from some of her own Democratic colleagues. I guess civility is only a word denoting a tactic intended to silence opposition and dissent from the right and not actually something of which the left actually agrees with in practice. I guess that is another re-defined term that we can add to the Progressive dictionary too.
82 comments:
Terrorist: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violent or destructive acts committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.
Shutting down the American government if you do not gut social programs applies. Saying that we will balance the budget by cutting social programs, no negation on that, applies. Saying, as they originally tried, we must have a constitutional amendment to enforce our right wing fanatic politics, definitely applies, and is unheard of.
Violent rhetoric is not the intention here. Clear definitions are more the intention. What if Obama had said, we WILL balance the budget with revenue and defense spending cuts and we WILL NOT cut social programs, and if you don’t agree, then I will veto any bill you propose and shut down the government and throw us into a depression and that’s all there is to it? What would the right have called that stance? The Tea Party not only said they would choose shutting down the government over a tax increase, but they basically said, “here is the plan. Take it, or America gets a bullet in the head.”
What if Obama had tried to create a constitutional amendment that says defense spending can never exceed the Medicare Budget for any reason and if you do not pass it, I will vote to shut down the U.S. Government?
What even makes the Tea Party think intentionally defaulting on a debt, meaning American decides to steal money from its lenders is acceptable?
I defended republicans most of the time when the violent rhetoric discussions were going on. It turns out in some cases, I was defending junior terrorists.
The Volokh Conspiracy dismantles John's "terrorism" argument pretty effectively here.
John, despite the fact that we seldom agree politically on the issues, I can typically understand and even appreciate your principled arguments in favor of progressivism. On this issue, you have jumped the rails of sanity, my friend, and given in to the hyperbolic demagoguery from the left.
First, nobody on the right wants to gut social programs. They do want to make them more efficient so that they will still exist twenty years from now in order to help those folks that are dependent upon them. Second, since when did being a mathematician or and accountant make one a terrorist? You see, if we don’t fix this deficit issue, eventually we will collapse under the weight of our own spending. Those raw hard numbers tell us that. Trying to fix that problem is not terrorism. It is long overdue fiscal responsibility.
If Obama were to advocate such an amendment as you suggested, I would think him to be a fool. I would NOT call him a terrorist.
That said, since we are evidently going to play this game, let’s look and see which party more closely meets the definition of terrorists, shall we?
al Qaida when they struck on 9/11 had as one of their primary goals to destroy the American economy. So whose policies are more likely to bring down our economy today? Tax and spend Democrats that have NO sense of the seriousness of our deficit/debt crisis or those fiscally conservative Republicans that wish to spend only what we take in revenue-wise?
al Qaida and their ilk also will strap suicide vests on their young in support of their cause. Which party seems to care less about the future of our children and grandchildren as we spend away their future in crushing debt and thus killing any chance for their living the American Dream. For that matter, in a more immediate comparison, which party far more routinely supports the killing of their unborn children in furtherance of their ideology?
Next, the House of Representatives did vote on and pass several bills to be sent to the Senate. They were doing their jobs. It was the terroristic Democrats that refused to accept their legislation and thus wanted to have us “default” accordingly. They did NOT present a plan or bill of their own until the very end as they tried to apply terroristic pressure on the only party that was taking this hostage situation seriously.
Nope, it is the Democrats, if this silly comparison must be made, that have much more in common with real terrorists than the Republicans ever will. Hell, even look at which party is blaming America and Israel for all of the world’s woes. Which party wants to appease our terroristic enemies like Iran and Venezuela while shoving aside our historical allies like Britain and Israel. Our own damned president began his political career by kicking it off in the living room of the domestic terrorist, William Ayers. Indeed, do you know what else Obama and Osama have in common? They both have friends that bombed the Pentagon.
All of that said, I don’t ascribe the term terrorists to the Democrats, even though there are far more parallels there than can ever be found with the Republicans.
H.R., your link further proves the point, sir. Thanks!
@Heathen,
As for your link, though I am liberal, I have always made the anti-union argument when speaking to other liberals. It is a very good analogy, but does nothing to refute my statement. As for the idea that those the democrats wanted the debt ceiling raised, not just the return of the hostages, this is because that was the hostage. Without raising the debt ceiling, America is screwed. It defaults on its promises, which is something that it has no right to do, and also something that is devastating to everyone involved. It is the threat that forces the victims into compliance.
@T. Paine,
As for your faith that Heathen’s link proved something, no justification needed. You are a man a faith. As for your rebuttal, no time to dismantle it now (or even read it carefully), but stay tuned.
[@T. Paine Part I …]
First, nobody on the right wants to gut social programs. Apparently you did not study the Ryan budget. A small tax increase would have accomplished the same thing as his attack on the New Deal.
They do want to make them more efficient so that they will still exist twenty years from now in order to help those folks that are dependent upon them. Ending social programs does remove all the inefficiency inside them.
Second, since when did being a mathematician or and accountant make one a terrorist? You are responding to the false dichotomy: cut spending on social programs or have a debt crisis. I reject both proposals.
You see, if we don’t fix this deficit issue, eventually we will collapse under the weight of our own spending. I agree completely that we will EVENTUALLY and so we should fix the problem. I proposed a very good plan for fixing it. My plan was killed in Tea Party committee.
Those raw hard numbers tell us that. Like every single person involved, I agree that we must handle the deficit emergency and the debt problem. You should spend less time trying to convince me of my own position and more time trying to embrace it yourself.
If Obama were to advocate such an amendment as you suggested, I would think him to be a fool. I would NOT call him a terrorist. I agree with you. He would be a fool. Anyone who tries to create a constitutional amendment to enforce a political platform is a fool. I agree with you that he is not a terrorist. He put the good of the nation first, or at least tried to. Constitutional Amendments should only be used to clarify once and for all what America is all about. It should never be used to solidify a political agenda because you think you may have the votes to do it.
That said, since we are evidently going to play this game, let’s look and see which party more closely meets the definition of terrorists, shall we? I don’t think either party is a terrorist. I think the Tea Party, which is not a party, are guilty of economic terrorism. However, I am pleased to walk this walk with you. Take my hand and I will walk slowly, lest you stumble.
So whose policies are more likely to bring down our economy today? Tax and spend Democrats that have NO sense of the seriousness of our deficit/debt crisis or those fiscally conservative Republicans that wish to spend only what we take in revenue-wise? Inherent in your question is the same false dichotomy. The Tea Party was no more or less willing to balance the budget than Obama was. They deny the existence of the taxation option. The question you ask is illogical, as it leaves out the only rational option.
al Qaida and their ilk also will strap suicide vests on their young in support of their cause. Which party seems to care less about the future of our children and grandchildren as we spend away their future in crushing debt and thus killing any chance for their living the American Dream. In this way, al Qaida is the most aggressive, then the Tea Party, and last the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party would have been willing to both balance the budget and feed poor children today. The Tea Party is unwilling to balance the budget, even though Obama would have been happy to do so. In case there is any confusion, I think the administrators of the Spanish Inquisition were more violent than al Qaida, but that does not exempt al Qaida.
[To Be Continue …]
[@T. Paine Part II …]
For that matter, in a more immediate comparison, which party far more routinely supports the killing of their unborn children in furtherance of their ideology? This is a fallacy of complex question. You are attempting to interject a discussion about when life begins and ends with a discussion of budget deficits and economic aggression. I will be more than happy to fully discussion the issue of abortion in due time. That time is not now and the place is not here.
Next, the House of Representatives did vote on and pass several bills to be sent to the Senate. They were doing their jobs. It was the terroristic Democrats that refused to accept their legislation and thus wanted to have us “default” accordingly. To paraphrase what you just said for clarity: the Tea Party did issue their unilateral demands and the president did not give into them immediately, even though the bomb the Tea Party planted could have easily gone off and the president knew this. Now who is the terrorist? Diet coke poured out of my nose when I read that. It will think about it and get back to you, sir.
They did NOT present a plan or bill of their own until the very end as they tried to apply terroristic pressure on the only party that was taking this hostage situation seriously. As you already know, they did not present a plan because the discussion was such that any plan they presented would be summarily shot down. They did not waste valuable time preparing a plan that would be dead before it hit the floor, just like the Tea Party did. Presenting an extremist plan is for show or compulsion only. Your objection here is either blind or dishonest. I will honor you with the assumption that blindness is the answer.
Nope, it is the Democrats, if this silly comparison must be made, that have much more in common with real terrorists than the Republicans ever will. On balance, I think one party has no more terrorist tendencies than the other, a position I have argued many times. The Tea Party is the only example in federal history that I can think of where a true economic terrorist act was committed: Amend the constitution with my minority ideology, pass my budget, or I will destroy America.
Hell, even look at which party is blaming America and Israel for all of the world’s woes. Non sequitur.
Which party wants to appease our terroristic enemies like Iran and Venezuela while shoving aside our historical allies like Britain and Israel. The democratic party. No wonder they identify themselves as jackasses.
Our own damned president began his political career by kicking it off in the living room of the domestic terrorist, William Ayers. Christian idea of guilt by association dismissed.
Indeed, do you know what else Obama and Osama have in common? They both have friends that bombed the Pentagon. I am still angry at Obama for bombing the Pentagon. Don’t get me started on that.
All of that said, I don’t ascribe the term terrorists to the Democrats. Excellent. We finally agree.
H.R., your link further proves the point, sir. Thanks! Yes, Heathen, you arrow leading the way to someone else’s arguments impressed me also, just not in the way it impressed your conservative compatriot. Implicitly comparing unions to terrorists is something I have done myself, so I am very sympathetic to it. However, it does nothing to justify the Tea Party actions or what it has done, and moreover threatened to do, to the American economy.
[THE END]
Mr. Myste, first of all I am curious if you have read the Ryan plan? As for Medicare and Social Security, part of the original proposal was to means test these programs. I would think that would be appealing to someone who thinks the wealthy are not sharing the burden.
Next, NOBODY is ending any of these entitlements for the poor, at least not without replacing them with a program that will hopefully be better and have the added benefit of remaining solvent for the foreseeable future.
Next, I am rather amused that you think putting a balanced budget amendment up for a vote is simply a political tool. Considering the fact that not only can congress not seem to be able to balance our budget, but they have absolutely no intention of even trying suggests to me that the need for such a constitutional amendment would indeed be a wonderful idea.
49 out our 50 states are required by either their state constitutions or other state laws to now maintain a balanced budget. I don’t understand the revulsion from the left for attempting to enact this same goal on the federal level. Or at least I didn’t understand it until I read the irresponsible and reprehensible Congressman Doyle’s words calling the Tea Party terrorists because they won’t let him “spend money”. That poor abused son of a bitch! We evil Tea Party types won’t let him spend OUR money that we no longer even have on things that are often un-constitutional or extra-constitutional anyways.
Continuing, I noticed that the deal that got passed ultimately had no condition for a balanced budget amendment attached to it. I further note that some of the Tea Party caucus voted for the bill anyways, including the Tea Party all-star Allen West. So much for solidarity amongst the Tea Party terrorists, I guess.
I know you do not believe it, but even President Obama has acknowledged it in rare moments of candor that raising taxes during a recession is an exceptionally bad idea. Yes, we need to raise revenues. That can be done by simplifying the tax code and cutting out most all of the loop holes. This will add to our economic growth and add more people to the income tax rolls to generate that revenue.
(continued)
Most of all though, it is not a revenue issue. It is a spending issue; and one which ONLY some of the Tea Party folks seem to understand and intend to try and rectify. Everyone else is simply happy to just slow the rate of our spending, instead of actually making cuts. One wonders as the stock market continues its free fall and the rest of the economy goes up in flames, NOT BECAUSE OF THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE, but because we did not address ANY cuts in the debt itself, if members of congress outside of the Tea Party will now take this crisis seriously.
I also think it is cute how you say the Democrats can balance the budget and still feed the poor despite any historical evidence to point to regarding this false assertion. Now I think that they can indeed do so from a theoretical stand point, but from a practical one, I think they are genetically incapable of doing so. Even eliminating the Department of Defense in its entirety, which I am sure some would like to do, will not solve our deficit issues.
“The Tea Party is the only example in federal history that I can think of where a true economic terrorist act was committed: Amend the constitution with my minority ideology, pass my budget, or I will destroy America.” Hmmm… and yet I see from my perspective that the progressives have said, raise taxes, extend the debt ceiling past the 2012 elections, and nix any balanced budget deal or we will allow the default to occur and destroy the economy. Again, the issue is moot at this point as both sides gave up their ‘non-negotiable’ issues and our credit rating still is in jeopardy of being down-graded as the economy already slides drastically even though a grand “compromise” was reached to “fix” the problem.
I would submit to you, John, that the true economic terrorists are those that refuse to quit spending and thereby destroy not only our children’s and grandchildren’s future, but that of our own too. You know, Hamas and Hezbollah also claim to have the best interest of their people at heart with their terroristic practices, and yet all they do is further entrench their people in poverty and squalor… something that our own progressives are seemingly wanting to emulate here in America. At least, that is just one more of the similarities I see if I were to actually call the progressives “terrorists”. ;)
[Response to T.Paine Part I …]
Mr. Myste, first of all I am curious if you have read the Ryan plan? Not only did I read it, but it prompted the most aggressive essay against conservative agenda that I have ever written.
Next, NOBODY is ending any of these entitlements for the poor, at least not without replacing them with a program that will hopefully be better and have the added benefit of remaining solvent for the foreseeable future. Maybe we could replace them vouchers, or monopoly money.
Next, I am rather amused that you think putting a balanced budget amendment up for a vote is simply a political tool. Considering the fact that not only can congress not seem to be able to balance our budget, but they have absolutely no intention of even trying suggests to me that the need for such a constitutional amendment would indeed be a wonderful idea. I support a rational balanced budget amendment. No such think has yet been proposed. It would be difficult to pass. The idea conservatives have is that they feel the need to add a tool to help them lay waste to the castle. Here it is a two-fold mission: appear to be the one with the solution; make the solution, if implemented, devastating, so it will not be implemented.
49 out our 50 states are required by either their state constitutions or other state laws to now maintain a balanced budget. I don’t understand the revulsion from the left for attempting to enact this same goal on the federal level. I know most states have some form of balanced budget legislation. It is all the Tea Party talks about. The States are a part of America. They are not at risk the way America is. They do not fund wars or handle national emergencies, the kinds of things that usually are at the root of a budget’s collapse. America’s people do not ultimately rely on them. If The Party does not see the difference in a state vs. a nation, our disagreement may stem from their lack of education, and perhaps we should start there (respectfully).
The Tea Party is not terroristic because they are stopping Congressman Doyle from spending money. They are terroristic because they held the economy hostage, threatened to execute it if we did not meet their demands (and at one point change our constitution to match they minority political ideology). I did not see the article where Congressman Doyle claimed the whole thing was about him, but I believe you and it is shameful. Shame on Congressman Doyle!
[To Be Continued …]
[Response to T.Paine Part II …]
We evil Tea Party types won’t let him spend OUR money that we no longer even have on things that are often un-constitutional or extra-constitutional anyways. I believe lack of revenue to pay the money we owe was the problem. This is not equal to spending. We should have raised taxes and had modest spending cuts to handle this. Raising the debt ceiling should not have been a question. We morally and politically had to do it. Putting that victim’s head in a noose was a huge mistake. By the way, you are not a Tea Partier. You are merely under their influence.
Continuing, I noticed that the deal that got passed ultimately had no condition for a balanced budget amendment attached to it. I further note that some of the Tea Party caucus voted for the bill anyways, including the Tea Party all-star Allen West. So much for solidarity amongst the Tea Party terrorists, I guess. Terrorists do not always have their demands fully met before they relent. That fact does not make them not terrorist.
I know you do not believe it, but even President Obama has acknowledged it in rare moments of candor that raising taxes during a recession is an exceptionally bad idea. I have heard him say as much. There were no good solutions, something a reasonable man will also acknowledge. He is a reasonable man and would have implemented the best solutions out there if given the chance.
Yes, we need to raise revenues. That can be done by simplifying the tax code and cutting out most all of the loop holes. This will add to our economic growth and add more people to the income tax rolls to generate that revenue. Fully agree. Perhaps we should have done that and left most social programs alone, aside from the proposals I made, which were way too common sense based for the Tea Party.
Most of all though, it is not a revenue issue. It is a spending issue All budgetary deficits are a revenue issue AND a spending issue. You don’t understand budgets and I haven’t the time to teach you.
One wonders as the stock market continues its free fall and the rest of the economy goes up in flames, NOT BECAUSE OF THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE, but because we did not address ANY cuts in the debt itself, if members of congress outside of the Tea Party will now take this crisis seriously. The evidence does not support your assumption of cause. If the debt ceiling had just been raised, this would not have happened. I think you actually know this. If you don’t, you are running high on emotion and adrenalin and there is no way to talk you down.
I also think it is cute how you say the Democrats can balance the budget and still feed the poor despite any historical evidence to point to regarding this false assertion. You are cute, too, Mr. Paine.
Now I think that they can indeed do so from a theoretical stand point, but from a practical one, I think they are genetically incapable of doing so. Come now, conservatives and Liberals have basically the same genetic code.
Even eliminating the Department of Defense in its entirety, which I am sure some would like to do, will not solve our deficit issues. Liberals love the department of defense and would never illuminate it, you imperialistic dog (respectfully, of course).
You were pretty hard on me here, T. Paine, and after I just spent 30 minutes defending and your evil troops of destruction at Fair and Unbalanced! (Again respectfully).
[THE END]
John, I see little use in continuing this debate, as you once again fail to acknowledge that you were completely wrong in this case. That said, I will accept your concession in the manner in which it was offered. :)
Further I truly am sorry, my friend, for the necessity of having to be so hard on you this time, sir.
I thought it appropriate though, considering that those of like political persuasion, and thus by extension myself, were being called terrorists.
Don't worry though, this evil closed-minded, capitalistic, God-fearing conservative still has much respect and love for his heathen progressive commie friend, Mr. Myste! :) Cheers to you, John!
Accepting my concession was very gracious of you. A smaller man, concession in hand, would have continued to fight.
Quite simply, the way a grown-up would attack the problem of debt run-amok would be to cut spending first, and then find a way to increase revenue later. I say this taking into consideration the recession, along with an increasing likelihood of a "double-dip," and the fact acknowledged on both sides that a tax increase NOW would subdue any resurgence of economic growth.
For Obama to take it all from Defense would be suicide for national security, and would as 'T' stated, be the act of "a fool."
Therefore it must start with entitlement reform and reigning in of social programs. Big Bird will have to learn to fly without public money for a change, which, considering the success of DVD sales, won't be as difficult as some claim.
But Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and other people living in the mid-1970's in their pathetic minds, are still talking about increasing "investing in America's future" via MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS. This behavior does not support the notion that everyone wants to reduce the debt. In fact it lends credence to the notion that Obama and the Dems are trying to make the system crash in order to rebuild it as a socialist state.
Such behavior makes a discussion of the inevitability of a tax increase down the road kind of pointless, even though this major problem cannot be resolved from spending cuts alone.
The American people are not altogether in tune with this yet, as they continue to believe that Tea Party people are all racist only because the Media tells them so, AND because so many cast their votes in the same way they root for their favorite sports teams. They don't give a rat's ass if their team is right or wrong. They only care that their side wins no matter what.
And this, T, is why I haven't been bloggin much lately. That and Facebook is too tempting a distraction. Wish you could join me there.
Matt, thanks for the great comment. I find that I am in complete agreement with you on all points made, sir.
Also, while I can certainly understand your need to pull away from blogging, I do miss your postings, my friend. Hopefully your sabatical will only be a temporary one.
Matt,
I am very glad you posted, because, though your post offered no substance to this particular debate, but only an emotional outcry, you did assist me in another debate I am having. I believe you are completely sincere when you imply that you think entitlement cuts is the only rational place to start and that it must be done eventually or the government will eventually fail. I also do not think a rational person could read your explanation of the issue as you see it and then still draw a different conclusion about why you believe what you actually believe. You are one of “those nutty republicans,” yet nothing you have said is insanely irrational or foolish. It happens to be incorrect economic and social strategy, an overly simplistic view of a complex set of real-world issues, and also happens to make false assumptions about budgetary plumbing, but that is a different story. Thank for your measured and rational thoughts. I will use them in my other debate.
The one place you faltered, which weakens my position a little is this:
They don't give a rat's ass if their team is right or wrong. They only care that their side wins no matter what. In reality, I am one of those liberals with a very firm position on how we should solve this problem, which involves only minimal social cuts . I care deeply about the national debt and I always have. It can and should be solved, just not the Tea Party way. It is a little closed-minded to consider that there is only one solution. However, liberals and conservatives are equally mentally dense in this area, so one has no more intellectual leverage than the other has. Each just starts from a different set of axioms, that’s all.
I know you care deeply about this issue. I know T. Paine does also. I could feel the passion in your words. I care deeply too. If we can at least admit that we both give a rat’s ass, and even more, perhaps the whole rat or even several rats, about this issue, we will have made the first step in coming together.
Yes, John, I did offer a bit of an emotional rant. But to say that I offered no substance to the argument raises the bar too high for your own response, which offered even less.
Changing the tax code to suit our needs, in my view, is merely an excuse for a tax increase on those who create jobs in our economy, as far as a flat tax 17, 19, or 21%. I know Stephen Forbes and Milton Friedman both argued for this, but a loophole free tax system means someone pays more, much more in fact than before. And it would be targeted at the so-called rich, who would take their money and leave.
Another option would be a consumption tax, I suppose. Gov. Huckabee and some other talk show host like this plan, also called the national sales tax. Anyone consider the results of this? The people would likely consume less. That might cure the "throw away society" mentality as more people decide to repair goods rather than replace them. But I don't put landfill space on as high a priority as some.
Cuts in the budget will have to run deep. Defense spending will have to decrease along with social programs. Streamlining across the board will have to take place in all departments. And yes, tax increases will finally be seen as prudent by both parties once we get out of the recession. But spending has to be cut first, because history shows that anytime revenue has gone up, Congress would find other ways to spend it.
BTW, did you guys notice that S&P did what Moodys didn't have the balls to do? They cut our rating!
Matt,
Yes, John, I did offer a bit of an emotional rant. But to say that I offered no substance to the argument raises the bar too high for your own response, which offered even less.
I actually did observe, after I posted it that I “accused” your comment of containing little substance, and then mine was mere opinion with little substance also, so touché. I did, however, post a link to my plan, which was full of substance, so I am not completely without redemption.
Changing the tax code to suit our needs, in my view, is merely an excuse for a tax increase on those who create jobs in our economy, as far as a flat tax 17, 19, or 21%. Agreed. That is exactly what it would do. Let’s hop to it, eh?
Another option would be a consumption tax This is the most evil of all taxes. It is a regressive taxation policy that taxes you at a greater rate the less you earn. The FairTax is the opposite of fair.
Anyone consider the results of this? The people would likely consume less. That might cure the "throw away society" mentality as more people decide to repair goods rather than replace them. It would cripple the poor and discourage spending and economic movement..
Cuts in the budget will have to run deep. Your faith is strong, sir.
But spending has to be cut first, because history shows that anytime revenue has gone up, Congress would find other ways to spend it. Ah, Parkinson’s Second Law: Expenditure rises to meet income. That is a substantive observation, so I give you a second touché for it.
BTW, did you guys notice that S&P did what Moodys didn't have the balls to do? They cut our rating! They should have downgraded our rating, and so should Moody’s. We are willing and able to default on our debts, even though we have the money to pay them. Therefore, by definition, we are not credit-worthy any longer.
We can argue until Armageddon why our credit rating was at risk, but the fact is that Standard and Poor downgraded it and they told us why. Here is why:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
What this means is that if the Tea Party had not played their hostage game our credit would still be good. Also, if the democrats had agreed to a 4 trillion dollar cut in spending, our credit rating would still be good. Neither of those things happened, so our credit rating is not as good.
Debate complete.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
One more quote: The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. If we had not got into a huge fight and we had just raised the debt ceiling, there would have been no talk of downgrade of credit rating, at least not now.
However, one could argue that in the future, it would have happened. As the old adage goes: "Pay me now or pay me later."
Everyone Needs to Stop Lying
-- And that's my final answer.
"What this means is that if the Tea Party had not played their hostage game our credit would still be good. Also, if the democrats had agreed to a 4 trillion dollar cut in spending, our credit rating would still be good." <---- Frankly, I don't know how you reach the first part of your conclusion. The rating would've been downgraded whether or not the Tea Party would've made such a valiant effort to stop the Democrats. What S&P means is that the Democrats were willing to hold onto outdated and irresponsible fiscal methods even at the point of a gun, so to speak. That's what S&P meant by "less stable, less effective, and less predictable." They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw Democrats hold so firmly in favor of raising the debt ceiling, even at the risk of default.
And no, John, this debate is far from over...
Though it's nice to know we agree on a few things.
@Matt,
They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw Democrats hold so firmly in favor of raising the debt ceiling, even at the risk of default. Can you explain this to John Chambers, the head of the committee who made the decision. He is unaware of it.
@Free
Myste, go fuck yourself in the face. Don’t you think I would be doing that already if I could? Humans are not fortunate enough to have this kind of freedom that other more limber species enjoy.
Any thing you've ever said it negated, you're a total waste of a human being, you are not smart, intelligent, articulate or worth my oxygen you are currently wasting. Hmm. That declaration is powerful. For one thing, it has a total of four comma splices (look it up, sir).
And you wonder why I think you choose emotion over reason. By the way, I hate to nitpick, but “anything” is one word and nobody wants to “fun” Medicare. I think I am right about this, but I could be confused, as I am really stupid.
You should do humanity a favor, stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger ridding the human race of your idiotic ramblings. Funny you express this in a thread where T. Paine is hints that liberals need to be more civil and that it is hypocritical for them to suggest conservatives use too much violent rhetoric.
You should do humanity a favor, stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger ridding the human race of your idiotic ramblings. Tie a cinder block around your neck and go swimming this second and do the world a favor. I am sorry to point this out when you are annoyed already, but your prayers are mutually exclusive. (Look it up).
Your worthlessness is irritating me. That, sir, is an oxymoronic statement (look it up). If my worthlessness were really irritating you, then that would be its use.
On a lighter note, your arguments are potent. The logic you presented is difficult to refute. You may have proven your case. I will have to review your well-written discussion and think about this whole debt/credit situation. Perhaps you changed my mind. Hmm. Must go review now.
Thank you for your thought-provoking analysis.
@Matt,
They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw Democrats hold so firmly in favor of raising the debt ceiling, even at the risk of default.
You do realize, do you not, that even if we had reduced spending, we still had to raise the debt ceiling or default, right? To paraphrase what you just said: They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw Democrats hold so firmly in favor of raising the debt ceiling, instead of defaulting.
Wow, that whole debt-ceiling debate was scary. For a while there, it looked like a few radical extremists were going to keep the country from going further into debt. And then where would we be? Without all the free stuff we like, because some people are stuck on the primitive notion that a budget should balance? I think you can say without hyperbole that people who think like that are literally terrorists, except a million times worse.
What makes people think the government should spend less money than it brings in? Probably racism. Also, a lust for violence. Because there is no logical reason for the government to spend less. None.
/ sarcasm
Free,
That was very creative the first time someone thought of it. Coincidentally, I am already home, so, as usual, your premise is mistaken.
Umm, first off, I am sorry that I was not on-line for this debate on my own site as it developed yesterday. Let me start by saying that you were way over the top and out of line, Free. You know that I respect your opinions and often agree with your logic and position on issues, while John Myste’s positions on nearly anything political or religious makes me absolutely crazy. That said, the violent hyperbole was not necessary, my friend. I value your comments, Free, but I would be greatly appreciative if you would refrain from the violent rhetoric and vulgarity on my blog in the future. Your second satirical/sarcastic comment that you posted at 5:10 PM in handling the issue was far more effective and amusing anyway, in my humble opinion.
Mr. Myste, after having said all of that, the genesis of Free’s statement is understandable as I also find it rather reprehensible to equate things that have no commonality whatsoever, just as the left has done lately, hence part of the reasoning behind this posting in the first place. Regardless, I respect both of you and your opinions and hope that each of you will continue to freely give them in a passionate but civil way, even those opinions with which I disagree.
Okay, now on to more important issues at hand.
Myste, I would agree with Matt’s statement that the debate is hardly over. Indeed, as even you acknowledged, Standard and Poor’s had stated long before the political debate began in earnest this go around that the U.S. would have to cut a minimum of $4 trillion in debt to prevent them from lowering our credit rating status. Not only did we not reach that $4 trillion number, but we are actually still ADDING to that debt, hence their downgrading of us accordingly.
I acknowledge that the ensuing debate only confirmed their decision to go ahead with the downgrade, but as Matt said, it was the intransigence of the Democrats in their lack of willingness to even address the issue in any substantial or meaningful way that was the crux of that debate.
It is akin to children behaving badly and then getting caught and having a tantrum because now they are being punished for that behavior. Indeed both parties kept spending money we didn’t have for a long time now. One of the kids, however, has grown up some and finally said, “You know, we really shouldn’t be behaving like this. Let’s stop spending all of these other people’s money that we don’t even have.” The bratty Democrats threw a fit and said, “Fine. Then I won’t play with you anymore!”. The reformed Republican brats replied, “Now little Harry, Chucky, and Nancy, we are going to get in big trouble with Mom and Dad if we keep misbehaving like this!” “No we won’t,” the spoiled Democrats retort, “We have done this for years and haven’t gotten in trouble yet, even though we have been repeatedly warned by Mom and Dad.” Finally, Mom and Dad hear the fighting and come outside and say, “THAT IS IT! We warned you little snots. Now we are taking away your allowance!” And that folks, is basically what happened on a far more monetarily significant scale.
Matt said, it was the intransigence of the Democrats in their lack of willingness to even address the issue in any substantial or meaningful way that was the crux of that debate. As Standard and Poor said, and all rational observers of the debate agree, it was the intransigence of Congress, not the democratic party, and it was the Tea Party that kept telling us to do things their way because resistance is futile, which is the definition of intransigence. You are not being sincere when you make this argument, so I feel silly even refuting it.
It is akin to children behaving badly and then getting caught and having a tantrum because now they are being punished for that behavior. Wrong again. In this case, the children, the Tea Party, was proudly OK with punishment.
By the way, I think I already conceded that shooting children is not tantamount to threatening the economy is one does not get ones way, just as torture and persecution of a religious group is a greater offense than shooting a hostage. If I did not make this concession, I make it now. It is a thing of degrees. No one actually believes that taking and shooting hostages and threatening to downgrade the American economy if one does not get their way are equal things. The argument is that the strategy is the same, not that the acts are equal.
One of the kids, however, has grown up some and finally said, “You know, we really shouldn’t be behaving like this. Let’s stop spending all of these other people’s money that we don’t even have.” Wrong. That child said: “You should not be behaving like this, as it is not what I want,” and they threw out all practical negation. When Bush was behaving like this, they said: “We should behave like this until a democrat is in office, at which time we should go after social programs.”
The bratty Democrats threw a fit and said, “Fine. Then I won’t play with you anymore!”. Wrong again. The bratty democrats said, OK, let’s play, and the Tea Party said: “Game over. Here are our demands.”
Neither side is willing to admit the valid points of the other side. Both sides are lying about the credit downgrade and the Tea Party is now ashamed of the stance they took to get their way and they are denying that they are the ones that thought they had unilateral authority.
We are never going to agree on this, and Free’s attitude is a perfect example of why (and also yours and mine to a lesser degree). People are too emotionally invested in their faith-based opinions to allow reason in.
And, speaking of Free, while I agree that he is out of line, it is not atypical for him and I am not especially offended by it. Those who have played in sandboxes with him before, know that he throws sand. As odd as this sounds, I did not take it personally. The outburst was really more about Free and less about John Myste. Though I disagree with just about everything he thinks, I do respect his intelligence, a secret he keeps well-hidden, and one I wish I could see it more often.
Alas, this specific debate is not a forum for his intellect to thrive. Emotion and intelligence are not mutually-exclusive, but one or the other is usually in the driver’s seat.
"...all rational observers of the debate agree, it was the intransigence of Congress, not the democratic party..."
Clever John, so anyone who doesn't blame House Republicans is irrational.
Everyone, please, please. I think you can summarize this whole thing in a nutshell.
It's like The Heathen Republican says:
Anyone who doesn't blame House Republicans is irrational.
It's impossible to debate someone who can't tell the difference between Osama Bin Laden and John Boehner. Anyone that stupid is frankly a down syndrome baby level of intelligence. Far as I'm concerned, he can suck start a shotgun. The world would be a better place if Myste got hit by a bus, the bus backed up, and then ran him over again. Peace out.
For once I agree with Free: t's impossible to debate someone who can't tell the difference between Osama Bin Laden and John Boehner. Should I meet such a fellow, I will not debate him either. At least, I will not debate that statement, as it is moronic.
Anyone that stupid is frankly a down syndrome baby level of intelligence. Logical Non-sequitur , but I appreciate the sentiment.
Far as I'm concerned, he can suck start a shotgun. This statement is beyond rebuttal.
The world would be a better place if Myste got hit by a bus, the bus backed up, and then ran him over again. I am going to have to take exception to this. Free’s world would be a much better place, but Myste’s world would be grossly inferior.
This blog is named Saving Common Sense. This retard? Don't look there, he's fresh out. He's too busy finger painting out dated philosophy dressed up as a cheap imitation intelligence. There is not thought, only a flat line of brain waves in need of a cerebral dephibulator.
Well, this didn't go as well as I had hoped...
I too find it interesting that the call for civility by the democrats/progressives/liberals in the political debate doesn't include the following terms to be excluded:
Tea Baggers
Fascist
Racists
Terrorist
Hateful
Regressive
Economic Justice (taking from $ from those who wont vote liberal and giving it to those who will)
I admit that I have used the term
Libtard. In fact a liberal blog closed down their free speech posting position because of me using that word. Forgive me ok?
Already members of the DNC are calling the default as Tea Party Default. That makes no sense to me since the members of Congress who call them self members of the Tea Party plan had been put into place, S&P said they would not have down graded our credit.
You know, cap, cut and balance. The very idea that leaders of the DNC called conservatives in so many words, crazy even to suggest it, as they were going to kill the idea.
Really have no more to say other than those who throw rocks shouldn't live in Washington DC
Tea Baggers – Using this term accomplishes nothing. The term carries no connotations other than “I don’t like you.”
Fascist – I understand why each uses this. I never have, but primarily because when I see BOTH sides use it constantly, I never agree that it applies.
Racists – This I see primarily used in reference to republicans, and wrongfully so. I posted a comment on a site just yesterday rebutting the idea that the Tea Party is racist. I think it was JMyste against a jury of 12 African American commenters, but I posted it anyway. I am always defending conservatives. You all are welcome.
Terrorist – This should never be used for any purpose other than to describe a hostage / terrorist situation. It should only be used as a method of describing something for the sake of clarity.
Hateful – This word is fine as a description of hatefulness.
Regressive – This word is fine and appropriate. I have used it myself, but only in reference to regressive tax policy, such as the unfair FairTax, because it is clarifying that the word is the opposite of progressive taxation.
Economic Justice (taking from $ from those who wont vote liberal and giving it to those who will) – This is not a negative term unless you make it one. It does not mean what you described.
Just, I am proud that you were able to shut down free speech somewhere. When I read that article, I wrote a scathing response in defense of republicans and how people are just people and we all get too passionate. Well, not me, but the rest of you.
I then reviewed the text that prompted the article. I shot Dave an email asking that he not post it. While I agree with it philosophically, his site was being converted into something that would be a huge turn off to people and make them not want to visit anymore. It was being converted from an intellectual exchange of ideas to an emotional slug-fest.
I have seen T. Paine and Weasledog get very aggressive with each other, but it is escalating (and I believe Weasledog usually starts it). When only T. Paine and Dave and Heathen debate, it does not go to that level. Intelligence rules. Dave wants that, and I don’t blame him.
Dave wants aggressive exchanges of ideas with civility. When he is confronted with incivility, I think he feels he must respond in kind or lose face or something. Either way, the site was losing ground and he reacted. I completely understand.
No one wants to frequent a site where the most memorable thing an opponent said was to call those with whom he does not agree a libtards.
Since it rarely happens, I have to highlight when I agree with John. It was all your fault JTF.
Even if you and I tend to agree politically, JTF, your manner on Dave's site crossed the line.
Some of the lefties over there are also over the top, but we need to all recognize that the lefties can get away with it on a lefty site and the righties can get away with it on a righty site.
As such, I'm sure Dave will filter out your comments, but not those made by folks like Weasel or Dusty. But that's how it works.
JTF, if you want to debate a lib on a lib site, you have to go out of your way to be polite and civil, or they'll shut you down.
JTF
Bottom line, I've only seen one Liberal blog that had the balls not to moderate the living shit out of the comments section or outright ban all contrary opinion and that was Major Conflict. I'll give Marquis that. Beyond that, liberals uniformly can't STAND anyone that disagrees with them. Can't handle it. 99 times out of a hundred they'll pick their vaginas off the ground and ban you no matter how extra special nice you are because in the end Liberalism is a faith belief and to challenge it is heresy. No fanatic can tolerate heresy for long.
No fanatic can tolerate heresy for long.
I completely agree with this statement. Soon, they will completely fall apart and just start trembling and raving like an incoherent lunatic.
Heathen makes some very good points as far as how to act on a liberal blog if one intends to not be banned from it.
That said, I noted on Dubya's site how he is grossly inconsistent with reigning in "hate speech" from those with which he agrees compared to those with which he does not agree. He is guilty of it too, as he accuses me of hate speech when none was intended, nor even to be found in my opinion, and yet turns around and calls me a tea bagger. Hmmm.... What is one to think?
HR,
Ok, darn it, (head bowed, eye's lowered, drawing circles in the dust with my foot, doing my best Beaver Clever imitation) I screwed up.
But now looking to the future, where can I get training on how to "debate a lib on a lib site, you have to go out of your way to be polite and civil, or they'll shut you down."?
I have seen utterly aggressive speech on Dave's site. It is getting even more so, where more name-calling than logical arguments are produced. That is not what the site was about and certainly is not what kept us all coming back.
He did not shut anyone down for a long time, and I think he would not have if the problem was not getting worse. I have seen him condemn the harsh speech of liberals on his site before, by the way. I have also seen him allow the harsh speech of conservatives. At some point, he has to treat his site like a business. If he allows biker gangs to take over, only bikers will want to be there.
No offense intended to bikers, and in this case I am using both liberal and conservative bikers in my example.
Surely you all can understand this, and certainly I know T. Paine can.
If all posters took the posture that Free took in this very thread, and T. Paine could see that this was becoming the signature MO of a commenter on this site, he would moderate comments. I know he would and he knows he would and you all know he would.
So, if Dave is guilty of his own indictment, is one question. If he should have handled this growing problem is another.
None of our hands are totally clean and we should all be able to appreciate this problem and its solution.
You have to go out of your way to be polite and civil, or they'll [liberals] shut you down. is a generic prejudicial statement that applies equally to liberals and conservatives, and should.
Well, my hands are entirely clean. Don't lump me in with the riff raff.
Well, then my hands are only moderatly dusty too, in retrospect. There! I've wiped them on my pants. All clean now! :)
You can't tell the difference between the IRA and the RNC. I cannot only tell the difference, but I pointed out twice on this site (and in this thread) and countless places on others. I can try to use smaller words, but I doubt that I can misspell them correctly.
As for my inability to make valuable points, I posted these points elsewhere, and received lots of debate about both, both agreement and disagreement. Other less emotional individuals found them valuable and worthy of discussion.
Not only that, but some very intelligent people had high praise:
our point of separating “emergency” and “crisis” startled me, a moment of clarity, I hope Obama reads MMA and especially this post.
And Others:
As a brother in the world of pen and paper, or in our case bits and ether, I developed an early respect for you, having just read this piece as my first exposure to your work. Being however, an ardent fan of well written sarcasm and irony, my respect for you after having read this reply, has increased accordingly. Many happy keystrokes in your future, Sir.
And still others:
John Myste, writing independently, managed to scoop every major news organization in America. In his diligent journalistic undercover investigation, he somehow was able to find what Fox News, the Washington Times, the Washington Post, and Associated Press were unable to locate: The very public Standard & Poor's document itself.
With all due respect, I think what really set you off was when I quoted Standard and Poor’s reasoning, which infuriated you because it backed you into a corner.
As for your well-reasoned arguments on your own site, I agree that it is not just blathering on. Like everyone else, I don’t read your blog, but for a very long letter written by you to yourself, it probably seems pretty good. Everyone involved offers your words nothing but kindness: and all from the lonely sanctuary of your lonely mind.
No offense intended, sir.
That's it! Myste! Free! To your separate rooms! ;)
I believe if you review the logs, sir, I have been pretty respectful. I admit that my last comment was a little offensive, and I almost did not send it, but my fingers just did it.
Even so, it is nothing compared to the things Free has posted about me and it is only in response to what he has posted about me.
Most of the comment was making specific points in answer to Free's well-reasoned attack. It was not gratuitous aggression.
If I offended anyone, I do apologize and I will try to make sure it does not happen again. If I did not offend anyone, then no harm done.
I am still breathing, and I have not yet honored the request to take a gun to my head or have intercourse with my face. I am sorry if those things are offensive, but ...
1. I cannot easily do the first. I passed out when I tried.
2. I am unwilling to do the second, as I abhor violence, and especially against me.
3. I cannot do the third, or I would have done it long before Free you made the request.
Again, I apologize for my shortcomings in these areas also, but there really is nothing I can do about them.
What you don't seem to understand here John (what a shocker) is I'm not trying to reason with you. Not remotely interested in that, because it's pointless. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a child. A retarded child, with no social skills. If you we were actually present for this conversation I'd just point at you and laugh.
John, I'm starting to like the idea of you having "intercourse with (your) face, " if for no other reason than the blaring attempts to be cute in order to turn attention away from the points made by T.: the most important of which was that S&P gave a negative future to our credit rating which could only be remedied by cutting $4T from spending.
The fact that the Democrats refused to do this even with a "gun pointed to (their) heads" makes things pretty clear to objective observers that debt solutions are being obfuscated by Dems themselves, and not the Tea Party. S&P's attempt to blame both parties for this may, IMHO, be an attempt at political correctness so as not to be blamed for running the opposing party out of office.
Free- Your sarcasm comment was beautifully and artfully done. The other posts, however, seemed to give John a lifeline with which to ignore more important arguments he could not counter. But I share your frustration in dealing with someone who seems more interested in being "cute" than correct.
T, this comment makes 50 so far. Not bad, bro.
@Free,
Free says: ”What you don't seem to understand here John (what a shocker) is I'm not trying to reason.” That is no secret to anyone, Free.
@Matt,
John, I'm starting to like the idea of you having "intercourse with (your) face" As I stated before, we are in agreement here. I just don’t know how to do it.
if for no other reason than the blaring attempts to be cute in order to turn attention away from the points made by T Actually, I addressed every single point all of you have made, I believe. I generally read the points and try to respond to each one, unlike anyone here (with the exception of Heathen on occasion). I certainly tried to. This is in stark contrast to the conservatives on this blog today, who have been unable to answer almost all of my points. You are the biggest offender at all, Matt, because you make things up and then pretend you did not say them when challenged.
the most important of which was that S&P gave a negative future to our credit rating which could only be remedied by cutting $4T from spending. This is a lie, of course. Only conservatives say this. The S & P, and everyone else, denies it. The problems were brinksmanship, too much spending coupled with too little revenue. Entitlements was one of the things they mentioned in the body of their announcement that you failed to read before drawing your conclusions. That is what John Chambers who led the decision said and I don’t think he was lying. Those who say otherwise, are lying, however, and for political reasons.
The fact that the Democrats refused to do this even with a "gun pointed to (their) heads" makes things pretty clear to objective observers that debt solutions are being obfuscated by Dems themselves, and not the Tea Party. The fact that you ignore the revenue option and the “settle the debate sooner option” means you aren’t being insincere.
S&P's attempt to blame both parties for this may, IMHO, be an attempt at political correctness so as not to be blamed for running the opposing party out of office. Yes, I can see how the S & P was very worried about being politically correct. Oh, wait, no I can’t. Moodys was, but not Standard and Poor.
But I share your frustration in dealing with someone who seems more interested in being "cute" than correct. I provided legitimate arguments quoting the sources of the data and the response I got was to go fuck my face, which is not possible, as I have stated on numerous occasions.
You on the other hand make statements like this: ”They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw Democrats hold so firmly in favor of raising the debt ceiling, even at the risk of default.” which betrays a complete lack of understanding of the topic, and then when called out on it, refuse to acknowledge that you have been called out. I have debated conservatives many times, included some here, T. Paine and Heathen. I am not used to debating people who are completely incapable of attempting to support a position. I do not frequent such sites or try to antagonize the less capable. I came here and commented as I often do. You came here and tried feebly to challenge, then hunkered in a corner under fire. Whether you are right or wrong in your conclusion, your ability to research is either non-existent or dormant. It is very clear that you are completely out of your league.
@Everyone
Generally, if someone challenges someone else to a fight, then does not show up for the fight, it is considered a loss by default.
I have been accused of not answering points made by the band of conservatives posting here, and instead just trying to be “cute.”
However, I mostly answer each comment with a line by line analysis, refuting each point. That is almost unheard of. Most debaters intentionally pick and choose what they think they handle. I cannot refute “go fuck your face” or “stop breathing,” but I even handled those comments. I do not ignore the points being made. I address each one (or at least try to).
I, the sole liberal commenting here, do a point by point analysis of most, if not all, comments made. None of the conservatives here are capable of this.
The conservatives, on the other hand, take a different approach:
1. Since their arguments don’t coincide with the facts, I tell them where they can find the facts. They don’t go look them up.
2. They make statements with no real argument attached. They ascribe motivation to the S & P for which the S & P does not take ownership. They say the S & P has their opinion anyway.
3. They do not acknowledge the real data. They give their opinions based on nothing but pristine blind faith, dreamed up purely their imaginations. Among their suppositions is that the research I presented is flawed.
4. In hysterical irony, they then argue that I make no points, but just try to be cute, even as they present no data and primarily use vehemence and ad hominem arguments. The best position they can make is that I should engage in auto-intercourse, shoot myself, etc.
5. In further irony, they argue that I ignore their points, as they ignore my line by line responses to their emotion-based points.
They would not last two seconds in a formal debate. They have gone beyond the usually arguments employing hosts of named fallacies and violations of the generally excepted principles a critical thinking to something else; something bizarre.
There is no point in continuing this thread. I have entered the Twilight Zone.
Good discussion, gents.
You on the other hand make statements like this: ”They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw Democrats hold so firmly in favor of raising the debt ceiling, even at the risk of default.” <---I'm sorry John, I forgot to add the word "endlessly" between the word "ceiling" and the comma.
"Generally, if someone challenges someone else to a fight, then does not show up for the fight, it is considered a loss by default." Well, some of us actually have jobs. Good luck finding yours. You seem to have so much free time to "waste" here.
"The best position they can make is that I should engage in auto-intercourse, shoot myself, etc." Only one did any of that in anger. I was only kidding about you sucking your own dick, as you already said you would if you were capable, but are not. Personally, even if I could do mine, I wouldn't. That's another difference between you and me.
"I am not used to debating people who are completely incapable of attempting to support a position." That's a 180 from what you were saying to me earlier. "Touche," "touche," you were saying. Or were you just being "cute?"
"This is in stark contrast to the conservatives on this blog today, who have been unable to answer almost all of my points. You are the biggest offender at all, Matt, because you make things up and then pretend you did not say them when challenged." It isn't that we aren't able to come up with answers to your each of your points, it's just that you say so many off-the-wall things, there aren't enough hours in a working day to address them all. We have to prioritize! We try to answer the craziest of them if possible.
"Yes, I can see how the S & P was very worried about being politically correct. Oh, wait, no I can’t. Moodys was, but not Standard and Poor." No, not as much. But S&P obviously ignored some obvious things. One of which was something you mentioned after I described it: Parkinson's second law. You know, that thing you ignored again in the following statement: "The fact that you ignore the revenue option and the “settle the debate sooner option” means you aren’t being insincere." Who is being insincere now? Cut spending first and find revenue later.
"They ascribe motivation to the S & P for which the S & P does not take ownership. They say the S & P has their opinion anyway." I was being kind, John. I should have said "they're in bed with Soros and the Dems and are trying to blame the whole thing on Republicans, you know, just like the main stream media does." And the major networks don't "take ownership" for that either.
Here's something else:
And keep in mind that the downgrade should have surprised no one. S&P put the Treasury on negative-credit watch back in April, stating that there was a 50-50 chance the United States would lose its AAA rating in the near future. S&P's rationale for Friday's downgrade wasn't based on proprietary financial analysis but rather on a statement of the painfully obvious: America's political system is dysfunctional. Who didn't already know this?
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/pdfXeg
There. Source listed.
And as Bill Buckley Jr. used to so eloquently state, "put that in your pipe and smoke it."
Sorry if I struck a nerve...again!
And in case I actually have to explain the sourced quote, if the S&P knew there was a 50-50 chance of downgrading our rating, it was indeed because they knew that one side was unwilling to reduce spending.
@Matt,
It was not a nerve you struck. You amazed me with your lack of debating skills. The off the wall things I said were largely S & P quotes or backed up by them. You and others, were completely unwilling to even try to back up your position, and yet you made declarations out of thin air. I expect to debate people like T. Paine and Heathen here, and they are just far more technically capable. Trust me, they use plenty of emotion, but they intersperse data and attempt fact based argument and logical philosophy and plenty of faith.
You seemed to have no interest in backing up your position. You made statements with no backing whatsoever and ignored the rebuttal that was documented. You accuse me of not addressing points that were literally answered line by line. If you did not want to debate, or were unable to emotionally handle disagreement, then you should not have challenged me in the first place.
I truly am not angry. I am astonished. It is a different world than I am used to, and it became increasingly bizarre.
P.S. The "off the wall" statements are supported by a large portion of the population. How large depends on which polls you believe; and as I pointed out, other sites have universally embraced the debate I presented, and either challenged it or supported it; the same one that upset you so much that you could no longer function. Either way, I do agree that there is no point in you and I, or I and Free, having any discussion. We do not exist in the same philosophical universe. That is certain and I am sure we can agree on that.
As for my employment, I thank you for your concern. I am doing far better than the average American citizen, and by the way, I am more than happy to contribute more in taxes because of it. I pay more in taxes than a great many Americans earn. I am middle class, I suppose and I am also willing to do my part.
You may consider this comment an unscheduled addendum, not a continuation of the pointless discussion from which you withdrew after you first comment.
@Matt,
Congratulations. Once I realized you were hunkered into a corner and were only going to snipe from your corner where no substantive comments abide, I withdrew from the discussion, at which time, you attempted more, now that my enthusiasm for discourse with your ilk has declined. You have lured me into a third addendum, however. I do not intend to come back into your world of faith and anger and do a point by point analysis, as that is not something you handle well. Out of personal interest, and nothing else, I will share a few pithy thoughts to selected statements you made (which is the correct method of running a debate, as you have taught me):
John, you seem much more concerned with the technicals of debating rather than who is right and who is wrong.
True, I am not concerned with who is right or wrong. I am concerned with what is right or wrong. When one makes a philosophical statement, it must be examined with logic, meaning that if it is fallacious, it is less valid. When one makes a statement of fact, it must be examined with research, meaning you check if the statement is accurate. To know what the S & P says, you must go to the S & P, not to some site where someone else who doesn’t know tells you what they think the S & P must have said. Other sources are junk if they think the S & P said one thing and the S & P actually published something else. What they published is what they said, and no amount of faith that they said something else can controvert this. Following these guidelines in debating works. The rest of a debate is emotion and faith-based, not reasoned. I can recommend several good books on logical fallacy, critical thinking and psychology, specifically, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and junk science if you are interested. I will have to gather them up. It has been a while, but they are all around here somewhere.
You act as if we were not actually part of the conversation Actually it was you who acted this way, and you largely weren’t. You responded to probably fewer than ten percent of the points I made, and your responses were rarely more than emotional outbursts.
I have backed up several of my points with facts that you have ignored. I am sorry if my line by line analysis missed one. Your name-calling alternative did not address my points very well either. I guess we both had a bad strategy. You did start trying to fight after I withdrew from the discussion. I started preparing a line by line analysis, and then I realized that you don’t do those well and I would be wasting my time. I had already announced my withdrawal from the discussion, at which time you seem to have assumed it was safe to emerge from your hiding place.
I would have provided links to all my points if I had the time. Finding links to a blogger or commenter who happens to agree with you is not documentation. The nation is divided on this issue. Citing the unsubstantiated opinions of others only makes sense if one is arguing that others do not share your opinion.
But why should I take the time when you and other liberal liars don't acknowledge them? I am not sure where to find these other liberal liars of which you speak. I am the only liberal liar on this site today.
[To Be Continued …]
[Continuation …]
I'm sure that Free, who was very clever in his sarcasm, is more than a match for you intellectually, but saw you as swine long before I did. Free has known for quite some time.
As for your pretended faith that Free is more than a match for me intellectually, I should ignore it, because I cannot respond without giving Free a compliment he has not earned. However, I am an intellect, and I treasure truth above all else. Withholding the truth would create wrinkles and mar my boyish good looks, perhaps even put me in an uncomfortable position of wrongness. We wouldn’t want that to happen. Therefore, I will candidly share:
Free will never be a match for me intellectually because he is too emotional and too crazy. If I were debating him and just wanted to win the debate, I would push his crazy button and then target his response. It is his Achilles heel. Though I don’t frequent his site, I have seen Free debate many times on liberal blogs. He can be very capable when logic is driving. I respect the intellect that is submerged beneath a ton of anger and irrational emotion. If I were on a debating team, I would not want Free there, though, because he would cause us to lose the debate, and rightfully so. Anger, emotion and faith do not substantiate arguments. Again, when he can hold it together, I think he has the ability to be a formidable opponent. He usually fails to hold it together. It is a tragic waste of potential. Free would make a very interesting psychological study.
I'm sure you saw Bush as an idiot and Kerry as an intellectual very superior to his opponent. You say this and then passionately start refuting your assumption, which I find comical. I am sure you would never believe me if I had did not have proof, but by pure blissful coincidence, I posted on this very topic yesterday on another site before you made this comment today.
I will not scrounge up an article where someone is stating they agree that I favored Bush at one time. That would prove nothing. Instead I will post a link to the comment I posted on the other site prior to your comment on this site. Please note the difference between going to a source and merely finding another unsubstantiated opinion:
I once like Bush.
By the way, I never liked Kerry.
OK. No response is needed or wanted. We will have to agree to disagree. You think I am pompous liar and I think you are untrained in the soft science of critical analysis, which doesn’t make your wrong, but helps explain why your reasoning is flawed. We have irreconcilable differences. This divorce should proceed without prejudice.
"Congratulations. Once I realized you were hunkered into a corner and were only going to snipe from your corner where no substantive comments abide, I withdrew from the discussion, at which time, you attempted more, now that my enthusiasm for discourse with your ilk has declined. You have lured me into a third addendum, however. I do not intend to come back into your world of faith and anger and do a point by point analysis, as that is not something you handle well. Out of personal interest, and nothing else, I will share a few pithy thoughts to selected statements you made (which is the correct method of running a debate, as you have taught me"
It's hard to argue with a drama queen who claims to spew reason, but won't listen to any. To state at this time that my opinions were well reasoned all along and that your passive-aggressiveness has made you sound rather effete would seem boring and repetitive to the intelligent audience T has. But I will say the The White House doesn't think Standard and Pee has any credibility, and I don't think either of them do either. So I look at past behavior and see contradictions to present behavior, and draw my own conclusions. I think for myself. I think that's what bothers you most. Your fancy rhetoric doesn't influence me one bit. And to continue beating a dead horse in order to gain your approval would be unproductive and senseless...like your artful dodging.
Good-bye.
It's hard to argue with a drama queen who claims to spew reason, but won't listen to any.
You said that much more concisely than I did, sir. This is the first point on which we agree. We should definitely stop here, on a high note.
I think for myself. I think that's what bothers you most.
You are right when you say that you ignore facts and make up the story yourself, but you are wrong when you say it bothers me. It amuses me.
Your fancy rhetoric doesn't influence me one bit.
You can never change the opinion of someone who knew his opinion before the data was presented.
Farewell, my friend.
As for you, Mr. T. Paine, you have been uncharacteristically quiet, and I understand what it means. You are gentlemen, sir, and I accept your concession in the manner in which it was offered.
@John...ROFL!!!
"'It's hard to argue with a drama queen who claims to spew reason, but won't listen to any.'
You said that much more concisely than I did, sir. This is the first point on which we agree. We should definitely stop here, on a high note."
If playing Pee-Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I?" is the best you can come up with, then it wasn't such a high note for you after all.
@Matt,
Thanks for your continuing post-conflict attention. You are too kind.
I merely noticed the irony that you finally made a statement with which we could both agree.
Considering the connotations of the statement, it was very ironic.
I apologize if my observation was construed as a personal attack.
I have nothing but all due respect for your abilities and intellectual prowess, and I should never have implied otherwise, merely because we disagree about whether I should put a gun to my head or engage in auto-erotic bliss.
As sure as there is a God in heaven, I intended no offense (and just so you know, I typed that with my left hand, that my right hand may remain fixed to the Holy Bible).
John, I never told you to put a gun to your head.
Now for the last time, stop acting like a child.
@Matt,
For the first time in a long time, I once again have the pleasure of saying: touché, sir.
If I were on a debating team, I would not want Free there
That's funny, I don't think my team mates thought that when we won the Larmon Trophy.
5-0. How many prestigious debate trophies grace the John Myste wall.
Oh, that would be none. It's not that I can't, I just don't waste time on a novice. Especially novices who don't even know they are a novice.
@Free,
As for winning the Larmon Trophy, I seriously doubt that. Your primary arsenal is made of fallacy, and someone educated in critical thinking typically does not do that. Therefore, I must conclude that you made that up.
However, you can easily refute it, I suppose, by taking a picture of you holding it, posting it on your site, and sending me the link (no Photoshop please, and don’t borrow one. It would not be sporting).
If you do this, then I will very begrudging accept that you either controlled your temper, which seems unlikely unless you have changed, or you stayed out of the way in your competition, which also seems unlikely if you cannot control your temper. You clearly are not a trained debater (or you don’t use your training because you find emotional arguments more convincing and your goal is to convince), and I don’t just base that on your performance here. You use anecdotal evidence and composition fallacies (q.v.) as your primary proofs, and you use regular named fallacies as your tools of debate commonly. Most people who do this are not trained.
When you are willing to stand up and fight, you can be very formidable. I have seen this, and I must begrudgingly admit it. You present many emotion-based and fallacious arguments, but most people do. However, I would not expect such from an expert debater such as yourself. I give you credit in that I have noted on several occasions where you throw a logical zinger in there that you opponents didn’t see coming. However, your primary argument, wherever you argue, usually ends up an argument my vehemence and appeal to emotion. I know that does not win formal debates (or shouldn’t).
As for my statement, it stands. If you are telling the truth, the Free with the crazy button that stands before us today, could not survive a formal debate with a trained staff of judges. If he learned to control the crazy, it would, perhaps be a different story.
Look forward to the post on your site, sir.
Free, if you're going to pose for such a picture, please do it in the form of a Democratic congressman: shirt off, bicep partially flexed. It's the only way to go.
If you want to see the Larmon Trophy, it's chilling at Michigan State. I didn't win that bad boy by myself.
So I suppose I could waste time on you John, and bust out my flow charts and source cards and make statements, final sum's and conduct a cross ex... but in the end I'll stick to efficiency.
The judges agree, you're a retard. You are unworthy of intellectual engagement. Your mind is barely qualified for academia, let alone the real world.
@Free,
I was easily confused by your suggestive question: How many prestigious debate trophies grace the John Myste wall?
You said: I didn't win that bad boy. It all makes sense now and I know that it is true. I was waiting for you blog picture, that I did not except to see, but I am now ready to answer your question: The same number as you, sir.
It was pretty a pretty good tale, though. I actually can see you winning such a thing if you learned to curb your emotions and stopped trying so hard to prove you are right and instead just tried to logically analyze things. You strike me as an intelligent guy who is dummied up by his emotions.
I find it quite interesting that you are completely unwilling to try to prove that the Tea Party does not take hostages, but you were more than willing to try to convince me you had a trophy. “I don’t care what you think, Myste, you retard, and please love me.”
I cannot refute with logic that you have a trophy. I will, however, accept your confession that you do not.
Geez guys! The comment count on this post is impressive to me at first. That is, until one reads through it and sees that three quarters of it is nothing more than, "I know you are but what am I?" ;)
Mr. Paine,
I think (if I can make myself do it), this will be my final contribution to this thread:
I declare myself the winner, much in the same way that Free declares himself the winner of a trophy.
I will suggest that even if you don't agree with my position, my presentation was by far the most intelligent of the three main contestants. I did point by point rebuttals that were backed up with quotes from sources. This was in contrast to personal attacks and declarations that had no source attribution at all. I did make fun of some of the attacks, but they were worthy of ridicule.
Also, I was far and away the most intellectually honest of the three of us. I gave credit where credit was due and admitted the strengths of those who disagreed with me as truthfully as I knew how.
Additionally, I was the least emotional, which is to say the least crazy. I did not respond in kind to the very aggressive attacks, and I did not even get angry.
As for Free and Matt, I congratulate them on their effort. They made a good team. While it was two against one, the scales were still balanced heavily in my favor. I graciously offer Free additional congratulations on earning his ethereal trophy. If you can, Mr. Paine, please find out what he would charge to imagine me one as well.
I look forward to future discussions, but as for this thread …
[THE END]
The only reason you lured me back in past "THE END" is that you said you would do something if, but I would keep talking. I wanted to circumvent that, which brings me great pleasure.
You don't know how the Larmon trophy works do you?
It is not a mechanical device.
I would like to make a slight correction in an assertion I made previously concerning Standard and Poors April warning of a future negative downgrade. I previously used a column in The Motley Fool as a source:
And keep in mind that the downgrade should have surprised no one. S&P put the Treasury on negative-credit watch back in April, stating that there was a 50-50 chance the United States would lose its AAA rating in the near future.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/pdfXeg
I found upon further review that this did not quite agree with Chamber's own statements cited by Fox Business:
S&P in recent weeks put the U.S. on a fast-track for a downgrade, upping the odds to 50-50 from a one in three chance it had reiterated last spring. Chambers cited "acrimonious" D.C. debt fights that were worse than the company had expected as “detrimental” to the rating in a conference call with clients last week.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/06/sp-us-faces-further-downgrade-beyond-double/#ixzz1VA1w9GaN
Note that last Spring it was only a 1 in 3 chance, not 50-50. The change, according to Chambers, happened in "recent weeks."
However, it is clear, according to Chambers himself, that they wanted $4 trillion in cuts to preserve the AAA rating:
And Chambers confirmed that $4 trillion in cuts over ten years was a sticking point.
“If you get to $4 trillion mentioned by the President in an April 13 speech, by the Bowles-Simpson commission and by Congressman Paul Ryan, that along with economic growth would’ve done the trick” to preserve the triple-A, he told Cavuto.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/06/sp-us-faces-further-downgrade-beyond-double/#ixzz1VA2rSkhw
The reason for the downgrade:
When asked why it downgraded, S&P’s Chambers told Cavuto in an interview on FOX News Saturday morning that “political gridlock in Washington, D.C. makes us think it would be difficult for elected officials to put the deficit on a sustainable path.”
Logic dictates that gridlock was caused by 2 sides not agreeing to give Chambers what he wanted ---$4 trillion in debt reduction. So if one side is to blame it is the one side vetoing the only plan offered to do just that. The Democrats never offered any version reducing the debt that much. And the downgrades will continue if this figure is not met. Only the Democrats are standing in the way of this goal, logically speaking.
So my source and my position was incorrect only if you are splitting hairs. The fact remains that Chambers gave a future negative in April if $4 trillion in debt reduction was not met. There was NO "conservative lie."
Spare time eludes me these days and causes me to prioritize my sourcing time. Today I had some time.
Save the touches, please. They sound gay.
I am sorry to inform you that no touche’s are forthcoming. Are “no touche’s” OK, or do they also offend your bigoted view of what a man is supposed to sound like?
Until you read the initial release of the published explanation, along with John Chambers FOX interview that accompanied it, you are still reaching for something other than the explanation given. I did not review all of your sources. I take as a matter of faith that you did not make them up and I applaud your attempt at research, though it was belated, and was certainly not due to a time crunch. You invested plenty of time in name-calling and faith statements. You could have better used that time for research.
When I read your next effort in this debate, I decided that I would not respond, because it is unacceptable to take so many days to prepare a rebuttal. If the truth stands by ones side so much time should not be needed since I gave you the source documents, so the research should have been easy.
However, I am a weak little man and I ended up responding anyway, much to my shame.
The published explanation document you refuse to acknowledge or read has a thesis statement listed under “Rationale.” This is the statement, which Chambers repeated right on FOX right after the downgrade:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.
Which part of this do you say Chambers took back? Which part of this do you claim was not in the published rationale for the reason? (If you give me your email address, I will email you the PDF). What part of this data are you challenging? If you refuse to answer these obvious questions, then we are at an impasse.
Just be honest about the actual data. It is not totally against what you want the truth to be. It lies somewhere in the middle. It simply does not fully support your needed position. It is very dishonest to feverishly scrounge around to find data other than the original source data, the published explanation, to support what you want the truth to be. If you have not found it yet, you certainly will eventually. There is always data to support any position you argue. It so happens the source data, which John Chambers published for you to read and to prevent the discussion we are having now, is not aligned with your position.
Again, I applaud the fact that you decided what the truth is, and then after floundering ten days, tried to scrounge up supporting evidence. However, it is not the high road. The high road is to simply review the root source, the publication, and interpret as honestly as you can (some confirmation bias would be tolerated). However, refusing to even read the real data and continually looking elsewhere, is not the high road at all.
Now, here is my concession: as I have grown tired of the argument and refuse to delve into the specifics of your citations, I will accept on faith that they are good and offset mine. However, to force me to delve into them and answer them while you have refused to address the statements in the published source documents, is unjust, as the burden of proof is on the one who says the S & P did something for a rationale other than what the S & P said was their rationale in the explanation they published to explain it. Additionally, you have been sitting on this document for ten days, and still refuse to read it because the thesis does not say what you want. In short, you refuse to review the evidence, counselor.
Oh, and one more thing, Matt: don't give me a "touché," as that sound really faggot to me.
First of all, the bulk of our discussion didn't happen 10 days ago, but only 6, and I did my research yesterday when I took the time.
You don't know what my schedule is or what my priorities are, or how many other discussions I engage in. Obviously had I known that we would have spent so much time arguing so fruitlessly with personal attacks, I wouldn't have spent so much of my valuable time doing so. But I have to admit I got caught up in it, much to the expense of other activities. There was also the disgust felt by me over such an exchange that caused me to set this aside for a couple of days. Yesterday I felt the need to see for myself exactly what Chambers said and meant. I figured his interview with Cavuto would be an accurate source.
Also, I don't, and never have, given touches. Since you seem sensitive about associating their usage with a lack of masculinity, then let's simply call them "nerdy" which they are, at best. But I'm also not the one who said he'd like to be able to perform oral sex upon himself if he could. I hope you were only joking about that.
I made a logical argument which you ignored, which may explain why you repeated Chamber's statement, which in itself made little sense to many, and therefore requiring Chambers to submit to interviews in which to explain them, hence my use of the Fox Business News article as my source.
You, again, referred to the April warning as a "conservative lie" which, after I prove you wrong, you apparently wish to ignore, after castigating me several times for what you perceive as similar behavior. Again, you make the rules, set the bar, and then try to sneak underneath it. You demand sources and call anything lacking them emotional tirades. Yet you expressed a psychological profile (admittedly well stated, regardless of its level of accuracy) of Free without any clinical sources to back up such supposition. So often you cannot live according to your own stringent rules for the rest of us. If this is difficult for you, then don't do it.
Back to Chambers...
My own personal opinion of this man is not good. He made a $2 trillion math error that he admitted to, but left alone! Then tries to blame both sides for being contentious, even though one side was more than willing to give Chambers the $4T in reductions he wanted. Is it logical to blame the side that tried to make Chambers happy simply because they were steadfast in their positions? Of course not! The fact that the Right was so zealous for its position and still couldn't get the other side to agree on it, or even get the other side to come up with their own $4T reduction should put the vast bulk of blame on the obfuscaters, NOT the party trying hardest to fix things.
By the way, if I had to guess, because I'm not going to review any other interviews Chambers made with CNN or anyone else, it wouldn't surprise me if he gave different answers to the same questions on other networks, ie., putting more blame on the Right while on a liberally biased news channel.
Respond if you want or don't if you don't want. I'm doing this for posterity, not to further argument or hurt feelings. Been enough of both from both.
Peace.
Matt,
My feelings are not, and never have been hurt, sir. This forum, the blogosphere, is a game, and to the degree that personal feel umbrage in the face of aggressive play, they should not be here.
I concede to you without review that chambers made the statements on FOX Business you say he made.
You have still, after all this, refused to review the source documents. Your faith that spending is the sole issue is inviolable. There is no way to challenge someone's data, when they refuse to consider anything other than confirming evidence.
I am not ignoring your data as unworthy, as you suggest. Instead I am conceding to it without argument. Surely you see the difference?
All I ask is that you read the "rationale" the S & P published when making the decision (or at least accept the thesis statement).
You cannot just decide on faith that spending was the issue. As for giving different interviews different places, the embattled John Chambers surely will now. However, the original FOX interview was given before the accounting error was an issue (I think), and he fully corroborated his publication ‘s “rationale section” then with no reason to lie.
Again, I am not challenging your data. I am suggesting that you read the published rationale and consider accepting that perhaps the issue has more parts than just spending, as the S & P says and said it does.
John,
I am no longer challenging what you claim is in S&P's report. Surely Chambers claims that spending is not the only issue because (I believe) he is disingenuous. I cited Parkinson's 2nd Law (which YOU agreed with) early in this discussion. How a man like Chambers, in his position, can ignore something so obvious AS WELL AS ignoring the fact that the Dems could have offered something all encompassing WITH $4T in debt reduction, but DIDN'T, suggests strongly that he has ulterior motives, OR that he is simply myopic. I am in doubt on the latter and am almost certain of the former.
By now you must have heard that Fitch's rating remained AAA. And you and I both will likely agree that this, along with Moody's sustained ratings, can be added to the list of mistakes.
On a personal note...
Your feelings surely WERE hurt, or you would not have used the word "faggot" in your response to a recent post regarding the usage of the term, "touche." That is but one example of several things betraying hurt feelings in this thread. And hurt feelings are the cause of much of the attacks, being volleyed back and forth. Admitting to hurt feelings is not something I see as a weakness for me to exploit, but rather is a sign of maturity that I should respect. It is against my religion to exploit such things (kicking a man when he is down), though I am not perfect by any means. I have sinned in this exchange out of anger in previous posts and for that I am sorry. I hope we can get beyond this particular discussion's ugly history and have productive exchanges in the future. I am, after all, not going anywhere. And I suspect neither are you.
I pointed out in the newer thread that you were correct in at least part of your assessment of Newt. Not sure if you noticed that or not.
Matt,
I used the term "foggot" to exaggerate your statement in what I perceived to be an amusing way.
It was a back-handed way of accusing you of bigotry.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Most of my "attacks" have been satirical. The only exception was the "attack" that you refused to look at source documents. I assure you, I have never been offended (that I remember) in a blog debate.
I pretend to be offended in some cases, if I think it is humorous, such as when I am referenced as a neo-con or a republican, but in reality, even that does not offend me.
Free's first attack was by far the most vicious, and not only did it not offend me, but it cracked me up.
Matt,
One more thing: I did notice that you backed me up and I gave you silent credit for it. Agreeing with me is always the safe route to take.
I assure you there are no hard feelings, not for you and not for Free. I even joked with Free at Dubya's site last week, though I must confess, he did not seem that jolly. I addressed my Free statement to someone else, but he realized it was really meant for him:
My political affiliation is not libertarian, for sure, but I describe myself as a part of the Israeli HaAvoda Party, the leftist Zionist group. I am not Jewish or Israeli and I have never been to Israel, but I am still a HaAvoda in philosophy.
I don't vote that way in presidential elections. I go ahead and vote for whoever wins the democratic primaries.
Because I am a registered as a democrat, vote for democrats, and have much of the democratic Party's philosophy, I am often mistaken for a democrat.
No, no, no! I am not a democrat. I am a HaVoda, and I don't appreciate being mislabeled.
See, it is just what I do, no offense intended. I know Free is a libertarian, and that this separates him in ideology from mainstream republicans. I have described him as a Republican on a few occasions. I do not do it out of malice. I do it because I am a jolly fellow who likes to smile.
My satirical treatment of opposing views could be regarded as ridicule and my arrogant handling of opposing view could be regarded as pompous, as you pointed out, or as arrogant and stupid, as you may have also pointed out. I don’t mean harm by them and I don’t get offended at very aggressive response. I expect and am asking for aggressive responses when I handle people in this way. I often enrage people, both republican, like Free, and liberal, like Weasledog, Anderson, Harper, Jodell, etc.
It is just how I debate. I assure you there is no anger or malice in it.
You made me remember something, and though I am sure you will not believe me, I will tell you anyway.
Growing up, I and my sister fought like cats and dogs. We would insult each other with the worst insults we could muster. We would say: “I hate you!” and “I hate you too.”
I do not remember experiencing any form of anger until I was in my teens and well past that violent stage with my sister. When I told her that, she did not believe it.
I will now tell you, so you cannot believe it also. I am very slow to anger and I think I am pathologically slow to anger. I will act angry if I am astonished or if I think it has power as an argument by appeal to emotion, which, though fallacious, can often be a very powerful and useful tool of rhetoric.
The most “angry” I got was a baffled frustration that I wanted to fight and I perceived you were hunkered down, sniping, but refusing to stand behind the shots (I have actually done this as a an intentional strategy before, but not as sincere debate). I honestly felt like I had entered the twilight zone. It was not anger, though. It was more like an aggressive strategist playing chess (a game I love) with a positional player, something I eventually became.
Again, you may not believe me, but it is the truth. My right hand is on the Holy Bible and my left hand is awkwardly pecking this out.
So, if the fence was ever breached, then so far as I am concerned it mended.
You know, John, I can almost picture you going to court to testify for some reason, and when you get sworn in you'd say, "By the way, your Honor, I'm an atheist, but please don't hold it against me," with your right hand still on the Holy Bible...
You know, John, I can almost picture you going to court to testify for some reason, and when you get sworn in you'd say, "By the way, your Honor, I'm an atheist, but please don't hold it against me," with your right hand still on the Holy Bible
I certainly would not remove it. You are supposed to put your right hand on the Holy Bible. That is how God and the law knows you’re telling the truth.
It is spiritually
Post a Comment