Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Warren said....Follow

#52 Aug 17 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You'll notice Gbaji still hasn't supported his strawman claims regarding the Bush tax cuts Smiley: laugh

I've noticed the more desperate Gbaji is to spin away from the truth, the more he types. I guess honesty doesn't need that sort of obfuscation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Aug 17 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
So, when I go hiking, I should stop and point out that each step I take is just an insignificant portion of the total journey. Maybe I should just not take this one? Hmmm... Sounds like a great way to never make any progress at all, doesn't it?

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh Thanks for arguing my point for me? Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh


Er? You're not a politician, Joph. Why the spin? My analogy is pretty clear. Each step in a journey is insignificant by itself, but if you don't take them, you don't get where you're going. Arguing that cutting funding to PP and NPR is "insignificant" and thus there's no reason to do so is just as flawed as saying that the next step is "insignificant" in comparison to the total journey and shouldn't be taken. They all add up together, don't they?

What did you think that meant? I'm honestly curious how you thought that supported your position.

Quote:
Quote:
Ok. List the things that the Dems are willing to cut spending on Joph?

Wait.. this is your response regarding your claim that Democrats think this single tax change would result in "all our economic problems [being] solved"?


I didn't say that they think that Joph. I said that they're trying to sell this fairy tale to the public. They know that this is a lie. But they don't care. They want to keep their spending increases and want to pay for it with higher taxes. I can only assume that they figure if they play this game long enough, they might just get what they want.

Quote:
You made the claim, back it up. Don't backpedal and start demanding that I run some asinine gauntlet for you because you're praying everyone gets confused. Show me where Democrats are making this claim you insist is true.


They aren't directly making this claim Joph. They are "selling the fairy tale". That's not the same thing. They use water carriers to put the message out. Or do you not recall the threads we've had where you and other liberals point to various editorials and economic "fact" showing that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for today's debt? Where do you think those come from? What do you think the purpose of that is? It's to get people to think that if we just end those tax cuts, we can fix our debt problems.


That has been the overwhelming message coming from the left for the last year or so. You honestly don't remember this? I seem to recall having to drag out CBO numbers over and over and over to prove time and again that our current deficit is actually because of spending increases and not loss of tax revenue. Again, where do you think those ideas I keep having to debunk come from? ****. Just this morning, I watched some liberal pundit defending Obama's call for more stimulus spending by saying with an absolutely straight face that Ronald Reagan had higher spending than we do today.


It's completely false, of course. But why lie about that? What is the purpose? The purpose is to get people to think that spending isn't unusually high, so cutting spending must not be required to fix our economy. There is no other reason to lie about our current spending rate in historical context. None at all.

Just this week, I've had to repeatedly correct posters who repeat claims that we should raise taxes because "taxes are at the lowest they've ever been" (or something similar). I keep having to point out that the "tax rates" didn't change. Revenue went down because of loss of economic activity, not tax rate changes.


Notice a common theme in this arguments I keep having to counter? I sure as **** do! The combined effect of those two false assumption is to make people believe that our deficit is being caused because tax rates are too low and *not* because spending is too high. Never mind that this is the exact opposite of the truth, that is what is being said over and over by liberal pundits and politicians, and that is what is being repeated by liberal posters on this forum.


So yeah. I stand by my claim that the Dems are selling a fairy tale that we can fix our deficit problem just by raising taxes on the rich. It's the only thing they argue *for* and it perfectly ties into the political rhetoric their supporters are repeating over and over in the media. You don't think they're actually making a logical case for this, do you? They don't have to. Just make statements tied into the lies being repeated by their surrogates, and the public might just believe those lies. Use that to push for tax cuts today. Then "compromise" with spending cuts that don't actually cut anything to make it seem like you're doing your part.


That's their plan Joph. It's kinda obvious at this point, isn't it? They want exactly what several honest liberals on this board have argued should happen in the US: They want to increase total spending by the government and increase total taxation used to pay for it. So of course they'll do whatever they can to get taxes raised while not cutting spending. Why think otherwise?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Aug 17 2011 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You'll notice Gbaji still hasn't supported his strawman claims regarding the Bush tax cuts Smiley: laugh


Just did. Although I'm sure you'll argue that's not sufficient. I guess nothing short of a signed letter from every elected Democrat saying "We intend to try to raise taxes while not cutting any spending" will convince you of the truth.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Aug 17 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unequal comparison.
You're right. You've blown off giving cites for your information far more often in far more threads on far more topics.


I provide cites when I'm talking about facts or figures. I find cites for opinions to be pointless, yet that's precisely what Joph tends to demand. I could provide a cite from someone saying that raising tax rates will slow down economic growth, and Joph could provide a cite from someone saying the exact opposite.

What's the point? Joph will claim that his cites is somehow better because it comes from a "noted economist". I'll point out that my cite is from an economist as well. Joph will then argue that my guy isn't as good as his guy because some liberal organization gave him an award or something.

It's meaningless. I prefer to do my own thinking. I provide sources for data and facts. The reason I don't provide cites for opinion is because I've gone around that stupid circle with Joph enough times to realize that there's no point to it. I don't want to get into "my expert is more experter than yours!".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Aug 17 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,016 posts
gbaji wrote:
My analogy is pretty clear. Each step in a journey is insignificant by itself, but if you don't take them, you don't get where you're going.

Have you by chance read The Hobbit lately?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#57 Aug 17 2011 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unequal comparison.
You're right. You've blown off giving cites for your information far more often in far more threads on far more topics.
I provide cites when I'm talking about facts or figures. I find cites for opinions to be pointless, yet that's precisely what Joph tends to demand.
It's irrelevant what you think is and isn't pointless or what your opinion of the demands on you are. If someone requests a cite, you should either provide it, or at the very least don't expect anyone to provide you your requests and not even bother to bring it up.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Aug 17 2011 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Just did. Although I'm sure you'll argue that's not sufficient. I guess nothing short of a signed letter from every elected Democrat saying "We intend to try to raise taxes while not cutting any spending" will convince you of the truth.

Yeah, I mean I didn't accept your paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of frantic babbling to avoid giving a single cite so...

Smiley: laugh

Nice try.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Aug 17 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I provide cites when I'm talking about facts or figures.

So you admit that your claims of "Democrats are trying to sell this as the perfect fix!" wasn't remotely a fact? Well, I can certainly agree with that.
Quote:
What's the point? Joph will claim that his cites is somehow better because it comes from a "noted economist". I'll point out that my cite is from an economist as well. Joph will then argue that my guy isn't as good as his guy because some liberal organization gave him an award or something.

Fucking hilarious from the guy who cries "You only read that on liberal blogs!!!" every time a major political new source is cited or linked to. You know... right before Gbaji links to CNS or World News Daily or Free Republic or something.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 10:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Aug 17 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unequal comparison.
You're right. You've blown off giving cites for your information far more often in far more threads on far more topics.
I provide cites when I'm talking about facts or figures. I find cites for opinions to be pointless, yet that's precisely what Joph tends to demand.
It's irrelevant what you think is and isn't pointless or what your opinion of the demands on you are. If someone requests a cite, you should either provide it, or at the very least don't expect anyone to provide you your requests and not even bother to bring it up.


Ok. Let me say this more clearly:

If someone says: "Spending is higher today than it has ever been", it's reasonable to demand a citation. It's a fact. A number. It either is true or isn't, and we can determine that absolutely objectively.

If someone says: "Trickle down economics doesn't work", no amount of demanding a citation accomplishes anything. It's an opinion. To support it, one needs to use argument. Explain step by step why you think trickle down economics doesn't work, don't just point me at a site saying "Trickle down economics doesn't work". That's meaningless. All you've proven is that someone else thinks that it doesn't work.

They are two completely different things. One is useful since it provides information with which we can all make our own decisions. The other tells us nothing at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Aug 17 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When someone says...
Quote:
Meanwhile, the Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved
...you assume they can either back that up with even a single real instance of this happening or else rightfully note that they're just making strawman arguments.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Aug 17 2011 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Let me say this more clearly:
You can say the same thing a million different ways, and I don't really doubt you could. Still doesn't change the actual point that you gloriously are trying to side step. You want someone to comply to a request for citation, you in turn do the same when requested. You won't do it, then at no point should the idea even enter your mind to ask. If you want to borrow a dollar, I expect a dollar back eventually and the option to ask for a lent dollar in the future should the need arise.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 11:31pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Aug 17 2011 at 9:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I provide cites when I'm talking about facts or figures.

So you admit that your claims of "Democrats are trying to sell this as the perfect fix!" wasn't remotely a fact?


It's a conclusion based on observation of the actions of Democrats. What the ****?


I can't provide a cite proving that the guy who robbed a liquor store last night did it because he wanted some cash, either. But it's a pretty good assumption based on his actions, right?


When did people stop being able to apply their own logic and think their own thoughts? You need someone to tell you why people do what they do? You honestly can't noodle it out on your own?


Quote:
Quote:
What's the point? Joph will claim that his cites is somehow better because it comes from a "noted economist". I'll point out that my cite is from an economist as well. Joph will then argue that my guy isn't as good as his guy because some liberal organization gave him an award or something.

Fucking hilarious from the guy who cries "You only read that on liberal blogs!!!" every time a major political new source is cited or linked to. You know... right before Gbaji links to CNS or World News Daily or Free Republic or something.


Again, if I link to something, it's because of some fact or data present in the link. Not the source, and not the opinion represented by the source. You're the one who gets caught up in what site is linked and what "side" they're on. I don't care about such things. If a fact on HuffPost or Freerepublic, or whatever is true, then that's what I care about. And no amount of the information happening to be on a given site makes facts true or false. They are, or are not. All by themselves. Something you seem to fail to grasp sometimes.


What's bizarre is that you judge my actions based on the assumption that I'm doing them for the same reasons you do. I don't look to other people for my opinions. I look at facts. I look at patterns. I come to my own conclusions about them. I don't read some blog and decide to agree or disagree. I might read a blog, then look at the facts there, then compare to other sources, determine if said facts are correct, and *then* derive my own opinion about those facts. And that opinion will often have absolutely nothing to do with the source I started with.


I don't let others do my thinking for me. You should really try it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Aug 17 2011 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Let me say this more clearly:
You can say the same thing a million different ways, and I don't really doubt you could. Still doesn't change the actual point that you gloriously are trying to side step. You want someone to comply to a request for citation, you in turn do the same when requested. You won't do it, then at no point should the idea even enter your mind to ask. If you want to borrow a dollar, I expect a dollar back eventually and the option to ask for a lent dollar in the future should the need arise.



You honestly don't see any difference between demanding a source for a claimed fact (like whether tax rates are higher this year than last year), versus opinion (like whether or not Obamacare will cost more money than if we hadn't passed it)?

Really? That's... amazing! It's like finding someone who can't tell the difference between colors and sounds. Illogic abounds around here!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Aug 17 2011 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I can't provide a cite proving that the guy who robbed a liquor store last night did it because he wanted some cash, either. But it's a pretty good assumption based on his actions, right?

We're not talking about some unseen motive. You claimed a real, definite action was occurring.

Holy shit, you're so desperate to get out of this, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper in. You thought that made sense? Really?

And going for the "think for yourself" excuse to defend why you can claim the Democrats are doing a real, definite thing but can't provide a single example? Are you just grabbing random pages out of your book and praying one of them works?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Aug 17 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Oh what am I thinking? Most of the posters on this forum don't know the difference between facts and opinions anyway! Why expect you guys to know the difference between a source for facts versus one for opinion? Losing battle I suppose. Can't explain something to people who have no freaking concept what you're talking about. It's still just amazing to me that so many people can suffer from a lack of what I consider a pretty basic understanding of the world around them.


Oh well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Aug 17 2011 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hahahahaha...

Yeah, that MUST be it! Be careful you don't drown in your tears there, sport.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Aug 17 2011 at 9:55 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I can't provide a cite proving that the guy who robbed a liquor store last night did it because he wanted some cash, either. But it's a pretty good assumption based on his actions, right?

We're not talking about some unseen motive. You claimed a real, definite action was occurring.


No. I've explained this to you several times now. Shall we go for one more?

I said that the Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich that our economic woes will end.

There is no single specific action here. WTF? You have the most bizarre way of thinking about things.

Quote:
And going for the "think for yourself" excuse to defend why you can claim the Democrats are doing a real, definite thing but can't provide a single example? Are you just grabbing random pages out of your book and praying one of them works?


Single example of what? Them already doing it? Or how about several examples of statements and actions which create a pretty clear pattern? Are you refuting what happened with the discretionary budget last spring? Are you refuting the claim about liberal pundits and politicians making incorrect statements about both spending and taxes in historical context? Are you refuting the claim that several editorials have circulated attempting to blame most of our deficit today on Bush tax cuts and the costs of the wars?


I don't think any of those facts are in question, are they? If so, I'll gladly dig up sources to provide those things. But you haven't questioned those. What you've questioned is my conclusion about the objective of the Democrats in relation to those things. I'm looking at a pattern of actions and statements and drawing a conclusion from those things. There is not "cite" that can prove that.


It's an opinion. My opinion. And it's based on a whole set of data points over time. You're free to demand that I provide sources for the facts I use to base my opinion (and my argument in defense of my opinion), but you can't demand that I provide a source for my own opinion. I *am* the source for that. It's based on my own reasoning. I'll gladly explain that reasoning to you (which I've done repeatedly), but simply saying "you can't provide a cite for that" doesn't constitute a valid counter argument.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Aug 17 2011 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's a strawman. Not even a very good one. But I love that you've spent this much time making yourself look retarded and ranging everywhere from "I never said that!" to "No you have to show me this first!" to "I'm so smart that you guys don't understand it!"

It's been a gold mine of good times and I think we've all gotten a good feeling for the sort of rational mindedness we can expect from conservatives once they get knocked off their talking-point tracks Smiley: laugh

Still can't show an actual cite of a Democrat making the claim that "if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich that our economic woes will end.", huh? Well, you're just ever-so-super-smart and stuff that maybe eventually you'll come across a blog that makes you feel better. But when you parrot it to us and can't defend any of it with actual cites, it'll all be our fault because you're such a free thinker!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Aug 18 2011 at 2:09 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

The lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $42b annually which is a fair sight more than $6bil. It's certainly not a singular fix but it's more significant than three guys passing a hat around.

My god, $42 whole billions? So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

NICE!


Better yet, let's make it 84 half-billions.

I won't pretend to know what we should do in regards to taxes, I do think it would be nice if we could work on how the tax dollars we DO have are spent. Sadly we'd have to spend even more money we don't have to review and fix how we're spending the money we don't have.




____________________________
"The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself."

-Jonathan Rauch
#71 Aug 18 2011 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't see any difference between demanding a source for a claimed fact (like whether tax rates are higher this year than last year), versus opinion (like whether or not Obamacare will cost more money than if we hadn't passed it)?
I like how you're so indoctrinated to your party you have to throw in examples of the evil other party to discussions that have nothing to do with it. Like you're some kind of retarded cocksheathe to them, and with each thrust their words are pounded through your prostate and out your mouth. It's quite amazing, really. I mean, if you want to go with attempts at personal attacks instead of facing the mirror and realize you have no idea what you're talking about, I'd be more than happy to comply. Like everything else, I'm better at that than you as well. Trying to reasonably discuss something with you is apparently an impossibility. But, as much as I'd like to point out your short comings in the most vile ways, I won't. Like I said, I'm better than you.

So once again, my mentally impaired colleague, I'll use as small words as possible. You constantly, constantly claim your unique snowflake opinions are based on facts. However when pressed for those facts, you rarely (I wanted to say never, but like I said, I'm better than you so I gave you the benefit of the doubt) provide where those facts are derived come from. However, in this instance you were quick to demand a cite. Do you not have enough neural oscillation brain activity going on to see how hypocritical it is, or are you blinded to this by the pillow placed under your face when you're being pounded on by "your secret opinion from which you got all by yourself's source."

Edit: Sorry, those words might have confused you. Fixed.

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 9:41am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Aug 18 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,356 posts
Not everyone with money is a greedy grubber it seems.

Matt Damon wrote:
“It’s criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don’t mind paying more. I really don’t mind paying more taxes. I’d rather pay the taxes than cut, you know, Reading is Fundamental or, you know, Head Start, or some of these programs that are really helping kids.”

“Why don’t you just tax the really rich?” he added. “Guys like me.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/matt-damon-disgusted-by-debt-deal-says-its-criminal-that-wealthy-dont-pay-more-taxes-video/2011/08/03/gIQAtgQurI_blog.html

Matt Damon wrote:
“This is the greatest country in the world - is it that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break.”



Edited, Aug 18th 2011 11:24am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#73 Aug 18 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
MATT DAMON.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#74 Aug 18 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't see any difference between demanding a source for a claimed fact (like whether tax rates are higher this year than last year), versus opinion (like whether or not Obamacare will cost more money than if we hadn't passed it)?

So once again, my mentally impaired colleague, I'll use as small words as possible. You constantly, constantly claim your unique snowflake opinions are based on facts. However when pressed for those facts, you rarely (I wanted to say never, but like I said, I'm better than you so I gave you the benefit of the doubt) provide where those facts are derived come from.


And once again, you confuse "facts" with "opinion". I readily provide the facts my opinions are based on. But what people like Joph demand is a citation proving my opinion. See the difference? I even mentioned this in my last post. Joph isn't asking me to provide cites showing that liberal pundits and politicians claiming that taxes are "lower than they've ever been", or cites showing that the same people are claiming that spending isn't abnormally high (some even claim that spending is at some kind of all time historical low, which is just a blatant lie), or cites to the same people writing/parroting editorials claiming that the bulk of today's deficit can be blamed on the Bush tax cuts, Bush's medicare planD, and Bush's wars. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims about the Dems weaseling out of any real domestic spending cuts in the budget debates last spring. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims that the Democrats have failed to write down any spending cuts they'd be willing to make. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims that the Dems are actually talking about spending even more money for some kind of stimulus2.


Those are the facts upon which I base my conclusion, yet he is not demanding I provide support for those. You know why? Because those facts aren't in question. Instead, he demands that I provide a cite for my conclusion that the Dems are trying to create the false perception that if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts (on the rich even!) that this will solve our economic problems. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to provide a written confession from the Dems or super secret plan written in blood or something. It's my opinion about *why* they are saying and doing those things.


To support that, I use logic. There's a common pattern to statements coming from the Dems and their water carriers: That taxes are too low, and spending is either just fine, or even too low as well. What perception does that create in the midst of an known deficit problem? Don't think to hard, it might just strain your brain. It creates the perception that the best solution should be raising taxes and *not* cutting spending. Is this really surprising? I don't think so. Is anyone actually under the false perception that if the Dems could just do whatever they wanted tomorrow, that they wouldn't simply raise taxes and keep spending the same (or even increase it)? Of course they would. We all know this.


Now, I'm going a step further. How do they achieve that? They can't just do whatever they want. They don't have enough people in the House, and the public isn't terribly happy with tax increases right now. They have to get people to let them raise taxes, while making them think that... wait for it... they wont raise taxes on them!. Shocking, right? I mean, I hope we can all agree that just raising taxes on "the rich" can't possibly put more than an incredibly tiny dent in the deficit, and if they do proceed with just raising taxes to pay for the deficit, they'll have to raise taxes on a **** of a lot more people than just the rich, and do more than just cancel out the Bush rates. They'll have to create new and higher rates than even back in the Clinton era, right?

No one's going to support that. It's a losing political agenda. Duh. But if they allow spending cuts, they lose the support of their base. So who do you think they'll ***** over if they can? Remember, we presumably all agree that the Dems would simply keep spending the same or higher and pay for that increase with whatever taxes are required if they had the power to do so. So we have to assume that they will raise taxes more than just eliminating the Bush rates on the top 2% of earners. If they can, right?

But to get there, they have to lie. Period. They have no choice. Thus, they have to convince the public that they aren't going to cut all those wonderful programs they are funding, while not raising taxes on them. The only way they can do that is to convince people that this can be done by just eliminating those Bush rates on just "the rich". Ergo, I conclude that they're selling this to the public. Not blatantly, of course. That would be too easy to refute. None of them will say something like: "We can balance the budget if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich". But by putting out separate messages which combine to make people think that they'll oppose spending cuts, support eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the rich, and fix the deficit, they can make people think that all they'll do is eliminate those tax cuts.


Remember when I kept saying that Obama was promising to increase spending, and not raise taxes, and balance the budget? Same deal. He was selling a lie then as well. But because he never said all three things together, no amount of cites would "prove" this. But he said each thing separately. Funny thing, is that I correctly predicted exactly what he would do once in office back then too. I said that he'd massively increase spending, not raise taxes initially, create a huge deficit, and then use it as a lever to raise taxes. Yay for predictability.


Guess what? I'm making another prediction. The Democrats methodology right now is to convince people that they will only raise taxes on the rich, will not cut their precious social spending, but will somehow be able to fix the economy and balance the budget as well. They are selling a lie. But as long as they don't say all three of those things together, people like Joph will fall over themselves to insist that they aren't selling a lie at all. Cause there's no cite you can make showing them doing this, right? So it just must not be true? After all, we all know that when politicians plan to ***** people over, they make a point of putting their evil plans right out there in the open. Lol!


Use your brains. All the information you need to know is out there. All I've done is make some fairly easy connections. And frankly, the Dems don't really have a choice but to pursue this line anyway. I just don't see how others can't see this. Like I said, it's not only blatant, but it's their only course of action if they want to retain any political power at all.

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 12:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Aug 18 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
And once again, you confuse "facts" with "opinion".
No confusion, just your continued act of hiding behind what you believe is a relevant point. It isn't to anyone else, oddly. Just you. No matter how much ***** you have thrust into you, to the point of it being released through your pores, doesn't make it relevant. I can't think of smaller words for you at this point. You're hopeless, so lusting for that dong of illogical nonsense you hide behind. Almost shaking at the chance to have it speared into your throat. It's irrelevant because your opinion of why it's being requested is irrelevant. It's simple for anyone with even a static shock's worth of electrical synapses firing in their heads. You want cites to anything, simply pull yourself away from all those hard core no holds barred triple penetration idiots that you've taken to allow access to your orifices and provide them when requested as well. Or, you know. Keep puking the hypocritical ejaculate on your keyboard and be mocked, all the while never getting what you ask for.

Of course, that's probably your plan all along. So you can cry about how, when you ask you never receive the information you request. Kind of a lame victim mentality. This way you can continue to posture as a pseudo intellectual and cry about how you're either not being taken serious or how everyone is against you. I'd say brilliant, but even my daughter knows better than that.

And you smell funny.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Aug 18 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
But what people like Joph demand is a citation proving my opinion.

Or proving your assertion that "Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved". But, hey! Remember what I said about how, the wronger you are, the more words you spew to frantically try to obfuscate it?

1,133 words there (not counting the quoted portion) according to MS Word to insist why you don't need to have a cite but it's not really a lame strawman Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 3:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#77 Aug 18 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Funny point:

According to Gbaji, the "Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% [...], all our economic problems would be solved". According to Gbaji, we're all just brainwashed little liberal parrots. And, yet, not I nor anyone I know believes that "if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% [...], all our economic problems would be solved". In fact, every Democrat I know who has an opinion on it agrees that a mix of spending cuts and taxes is the best (and probably only) way out of this.

So I guess the Democrats are trying to sell this story to me but I don't believe it because I'm too brainwashed by the Democrats trying to sell me the story I don't believe. Yeah. Made sense to me, too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Aug 18 2011 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
It isn't even about this specific thread or even topic, since fuck knows it's been brought up a million times. It's just about every thread when he's asked for a cite. "I get my opinions from facts." Okay, where are those facts?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Aug 18 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
I find it ironic that for once voting for a republican is more likely to mean more taxes for me than voting for a democrat. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#80 Aug 18 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
It isn't even about this specific thread or even topic, since fuck knows it's been brought up a million times.

If you don't focus, Gbaji will run off in a thousand different directions, saying "It's not this point! Not this one either! Can't you see the po-- no, not that! Not that point!..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Aug 18 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But what people like Joph demand is a citation proving my opinion.

Or proving your assertion that "Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved".


Changing the word used doesn't change what's going on Joph. What is an assertion in this context? It's what I think they're trying to do. Duh.

I can't "prove" that Joph. I can provide evidence to support it (which I have) and an argument tying that evidence to the assertion/opinion/conclusion/whatever that I've arrived at. How do you decide what's going on around you Joph? You see a dog barking while looking up at a tree. Do you need someone to prove to you that there might be something in the tree? Or do you speculate that "maybe something is up in the tree" and go look?

I'm looking at a pattern of behavior from the Democrats and their surrogates in the media. Based on that I'm drawing some conclusions. Speculative, to be sure. And you're free to argue that there's some other explanation for their actions if you want. But you avoided doing that and instead insisted that I provide a "cite" to prove what I was saying.


I'm sorry, but that's just bizarre. It's like you don't want to come up with an alternative explanation, so you instead embark on the grand plan to demand proof of mine so that you never have to. Can you provide an alternative? Not what they're saying they're doing, but looking at their actions and the political reality and making an educated guess about what they're really trying to do here. Or are you really that gullible?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Aug 18 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But what people like Joph demand is a citation proving my opinion.

Or proving your assertion that "Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved".

What is an assertion in this context? It's what I think they're trying to do. Duh.

Why do you need to claim this is only what you "think" they are trying to do? Why not just cite a single Democrat saying that this is the case? Shit, at least when I say "Republicans don't compromise" or something, I can follow it up with some articles (OMG! Hyper-far-ultra-mega-left news sources!!!) of Republicans actually saying "Fuck no, we won't compromise..." I don't need to write paragraph after paragraph about why this is only my opinion and how dare you ask me for a cite.

You can spin and babble and spew another 1,330-odd words but what you can't do is offer even a single bit of real evidence that this is the case.

But then, you don't get your news from anywhere so it's no surprise that all you have is word-vomit in lieu of some actual information.

Great job calling me "gullible" as you parrot "Dems want this!" talking points and can't provide a single reference Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 4:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Aug 18 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,016 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Not everyone with money is a greedy grubber it seems.

Matt Damon wrote:
“It’s criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don’t mind paying more. I really don’t mind paying more taxes. I’d rather pay the taxes than cut, you know, Reading is Fundamental or, you know, Head Start, or some of these programs that are really helping kids.”

“Why don’t you just tax the really rich?” he added. “Guys like me.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/matt-damon-disgusted-by-debt-deal-says-its-criminal-that-wealthy-dont-pay-more-taxes-video/2011/08/03/gIQAtgQurI_blog.html

Matt Damon wrote:
“This is the greatest country in the world - is it that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break.”

I fucking *love* Matt!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#84 Aug 18 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,356 posts
I am not usually one to give any credence whatsoever to celebrities, but he sure acts like a decent guy.

Might just be acting (being an actor and all)... but I do love how he has been defending teachers lately.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#85 Aug 18 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,016 posts
No, by all accounts he is a decent, real down-to-earth guy; as much as a "normal guy" as a Hollywood superstar can be.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#86 Aug 18 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why do you need to claim this is only what you "think" they are trying to do?


UM... Because it's what I think they're trying to do? You're not really this dense, are you?

Quote:
Why not just cite a single Democrat saying that this is the case?


You're actually asking this question!?

Um... Because when you're speculating that a political party is attempting to pull one over on the public in order to avoid losing political power in the next election, they usually aren't polite enough to actually say "we're going to make people think this false thing so that we can get reelected".

Maybe you are that dense! Shocking.


Quote:
Shit, at least when I say "Republicans don't compromise" or something, I can follow it up with some articles (OMG! Hyper-far-ultra-mega-left news sources!!!) of Republicans actually saying "Fuck no, we won't compromise..." I don't need to write paragraph after paragraph about why this is only my opinion and how dare you ask me for a cite.



Sigh... But if you then said "Republicans really do want to compromise, but the Tea Party has a strong enough influence over them to force them to say that they wont publicly", no one would demand that you provide a cite for this, right? You get how the first thing is a "fact", while the other is an "opinion" (speculation really)?


Seriously Joph. Stop posting for the sake of trying to prove you're "right" and look at what I'm saying. You're just knee-jerking at this point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Aug 18 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You get how the first thing is a "fact", while the other is an "opinion"

I get how you presented your grand "Democrats are trying to trick everyone into thinking this is true!" as a fact and then had to backpedal over and over again into some lame "That was just an opinion!" defense. Yes, that was obvious.
Quote:
Seriously Joph. Stop posting for the sake of trying to prove you're "right"

I did that over a page ago. I'm posting now for the entertainment of you flailing about, trying to be less wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Aug 18 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You get how the first thing is a "fact", while the other is an "opinion"

I get how you presented your grand "Democrats are trying to trick everyone into thinking this is true!" as a fact and then had to backpedal over and over again into some lame "That was just an opinion!" defense. Yes, that was obvious.


And what part of that statement made you think it could be proven by a quotation from the Democrats? Could you at least try to engage the ol noggin for a moment here?

Quote:
Quote:
Seriously Joph. Stop posting for the sake of trying to prove you're "right"

I did that over a page ago. I'm posting now for the entertainment of you flailing about, trying to be less wrong.


Lol! Even you don't believe that one. It's amazing how you always manage to start nitpicking some irrelevant part of my posts right about the time you realize you don't have a good counter argument to what I'm saying. But hey! if it makes you feel better about your political choices to believe this, by all means go for it. You're not really fooling anyone though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Aug 18 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Even you don't believe that one.

Wow.

Just...


Wow.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Aug 19 2011 at 4:15 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
when is the wedding guys?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#91 Aug 19 2011 at 5:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're not really fooling anyone though.

This is hysterical.
#92 Aug 19 2011 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Usually when using an Appeal to Popularity fallacy you want to use an argument that's, you know, popular with the appropriate group.

I guess Gbaji is just a trailblazer in creating new fallacies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Aug 19 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
He's innovative!
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#94 Aug 19 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Usually when using an Appeal to Popularity fallacy you want to use an argument that's, you know, popular with the appropriate group.

I guess Gbaji is just a trailblazer in creating new fallacies.
It's the much vaunted 'Appeal to Unpopularity', cherished by histers, anarchists, and niche academia.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#95 Aug 19 2011 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
Fact check on a Daily Show clip I saw this morning. Stewart claimed that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest 2% of Americans would raise 700 billion over 10 years. Republicans argue this is unfair to the rich, especially when about 50% of Americans pay no income tax. He said that the poorest 50% of Americans own 2.5% of all the wealth in the US; and if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own), it would equal the same amount raised (700 billion) as the income tax raise on the most rich. Granted, that would be "immediately," not over 10 years.

Anyone know if that's correct? The math seemed sound, but I don't know if the figures he was using were.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#96 Aug 19 2011 at 12:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Well, there's the problem. Clearly we need to take everything. Smiley: schooled

Also blatantly stolen
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#97 Aug 19 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own)

Plus, you need to find a guy to buy all those old futons, 14" CRTs and Nascar collectible plates.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Aug 19 2011 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Well, there's the problem. Clearly we need to take everything. Smiley: schooled

Also blatantly stolen


But they'll never take our freedom!!

Also blatantly stolen
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#99 Aug 19 2011 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own)

Plus, you need to find a guy to buy all those old futons, 14" CRTs and Nascar collectible plates.


You say 14" CRT like it's a bad thing.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#100 Aug 19 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I guess it's not. If you're a hobo.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Aug 19 2011 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own)

Plus, you need to find a guy to buy all those old futons, 14" CRTs and Nascar collectible plates.


You say 14" CRT like it's a bad thing.

No wonder you can't see anything.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CST
Bijou, Calthine, Kavekkk, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (30)