grannywils Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 2000 election: You're a terrorist for not supporting Bush 2008: You're racist for not supporting Obama 2012: You're anti-gay and STILL racist for not supporting Obama I'm done with this crap. -_- Yeah, welcome to the new politics.... The dems are all socialists, the repubbies are war-mongers, and obstructionists, and are just itchin' to pull the trigger on Iran, the independents are whack-job extremists, the occupy movement is all about ME, and what I can get from the government.... etc. Everyone paints all the 'other guys' as some flavor of evil, that is out to destroy our country on purpose. What's really funny is, they all say "we have the best interests of 'THE PEOPLE' in mind".... Their definitions of 'the people' just vary considerably from party to party. None of them have the faintest desire to do what's right FOR THE COUNTRY, only, what is right for THEM. Yer' darn tootin'. Please see my post #58....:verymad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 You and I have just stumbled upon that rarified and elusive common ground that I had begun to doubt we would ever find. (excluding the libertarian sentiment of course! :happy: ) :thumbsup: Kudos. Actually I think this is the problem, right here. When someone wants to get real serious about actual facts, no one can handle it and it goes right back to mud slinging and nonsensical sound bytes, pithy one-liners and shallow talking points. I'm armed with data and video evidence and credible bipartisan sources, myself. I think you are correct. We all have data, video evidence and credible bipartisan sources to back us up. Life is not that simple. Lies, lies and and damn statistics!!!!!! I think we could look at the same numbers and come to different conclusions. We all have pre-conceived notions and different life experiences to draw on. What seems blatantly obvious to me is a mystery or is certainly wrong to someone else. Who is right? No one can convince the other that they are wrong. That is why Libertarianism is the correct form of government. No one is forcing their beliefs on others. As long as you are non-violent and pursuing your own goals and beliefs then great, have at it. Again, this seems obvious to me but to others, force by the majority is required for a civil society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Actually I think this is the problem, right here. When someone wants to get real serious about actual facts, no one can handle it and it goes right back to mud slinging and nonsensical sound bytes, pithy one-liners and shallow talking points. I'm armed with data and video evidence and credible bipartisan sources, myself.I have always prided myself on an open mind, so present away..... :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Actually I think this is the problem, right here. When someone wants to get real serious about actual facts, no one can handle it and it goes right back to mud slinging and nonsensical sound bytes, pithy one-liners and shallow talking points. I'm armed with data and video evidence and credible bipartisan sources, myself.I have always prided myself on an open mind, so present away..... :whistling: The American Enterprise Institute is no bastion of Liberalism, on the contrary they are a business championing conservative think tank; Paul Ryan is the embodiment of Right Wing. Did you bother to watch the archived recording I linked? I did. :armscrossed: "For many people, the distribution of public burdens and benefits is a principal measure of social justice (see, e.g., Penner, 2004; Rawls, 2001). Of course, people disagree sharply on what is fair and, looking at the same budget, will disagree in their assessments of its fairness." -- Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future Video: Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate in support of reductions in the federal tax burden. His reasoning implies that paying off the national debt is not a good idea. This is widely perceived as greenlighting the Bush Tax Cuts. As I mentioned before, this is conveniently after George W. Bush's election. Woohoo! FOIA document: Life After Debt. Government document worrying over the consequences of US owing zero debt. Planet Money uncovers the document here. Washington Post reacts to Planet Money story here. Here's a question: if government is always wrong, why should I have faith in Paul Ryan's budget? A budget that pays no heed to the advice in his own symposium (maybe because he left instead of paying attention to what was said there.) **I was paying attention.** If those projected surpluses are no longer a threat o_O, why continue the Bush Tax cuts at all, one wonders why we still need them when the reason for their very existence is no longer valid. Oh, I have an idea.. the moneyed class both votes, and impacts policy by purchasing campaigns/candidates, the moneyed class also has access to speech :unsure: in the form of for example Fox Networks, and so wields a strong influence on public perception. Hey! Did I ever mention a book I read way back in the 80s called "Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander? What a name that guy had, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We all have data, video evidence and credible bipartisan sources to back us up. Life is not that simple. Lies, lies and and damn statistics!!!!!!You and I have just stumbled upon that rarified and elusive common ground that I had begun to doubt we would ever find. :thumbsup: Kudos. Anyone who claims that is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, I think, perhaps not intentionally, but still I think it's disingenuous to make such a claim... The numbers don't lie, someone has to go to the trouble of making them lie... I mention this because people nowadays tend to fall back on that saying "damn lies and statistics" without thinking much about it. It has become part of "common knowledge". But it's simply not true. Instead of attacking statistics generally, you must attack statistics specifically in order to be truly credible. That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We all have data, video evidence and credible bipartisan sources to back us up. Life is not that simple. Lies, lies and and damn statistics!!!!!!You and I have just stumbled upon that rarified and elusive common ground that I had begun to doubt we would ever find. :thumbsup: Kudos. Anyone who claims that is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, I think, perhaps not intentionally, but still I think it's disingenuous to make such a claim... The numbers don't lie, someone has to go to the trouble of making them lie... I mention this because people nowadays tend to fall back on that saying "damn lies and statistics" without thinking much about it. It has become part of "common knowledge". But it's simply not true. Instead of attacking statistics generally, you must attack statistics specifically in order to be truly credible. That's my point. Oh stop. I was happy to find some common ground, and as you point out I had already made known my disagreement without that particular bean. So why sweat it, when I know what he meant. The gist of his message I can live with, just fine. I can't endorse his politics, nor most of his opinions, and that's obviously mutual. Can't we all just get along. Have a beer, bastard. :dance: And tell me what you really think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We all have data, video evidence and credible bipartisan sources to back us up. Life is not that simple. Lies, lies and and damn statistics!!!!!!You and I have just stumbled upon that rarified and elusive common ground that I had begun to doubt we would ever find. :thumbsup: Kudos. Anyone who claims that is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, I think, perhaps not intentionally, but still I think it's disingenuous to make such a claim... The numbers don't lie, someone has to go to the trouble of making them lie... I mention this because people nowadays tend to fall back on that saying "damn lies and statistics" without thinking much about it. It has become part of "common knowledge". But it's simply not true. Instead of attacking statistics generally, you must attack statistics specifically in order to be truly credible. That's my point. I guess you've never taken a statistics course! I actually had it slightly wrong , "lies, damn lies and statistics" - Mark TwainNever doubt Mark Twain. Myrmaad, I also am happy to have found a point of agreement. It seems the one thing we can agree to do is to disagree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 And tell me what you really think?What I really think? OP basically said "Obama's face looks weird, ITT Obama bitchfest." But the political reality is that this year we're going to vote on who will represent America to the world – who best represents our national ideals. On the one hand we have Obama, who rocketed from political obscurity to be the first goddamn black president. Took positive steps toward health care reform, allowed federal funding for stem cell research, made the first official statement in support of gay marriage, passed the Matthew Shepard Act after eight years in limbo, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, suggested and passed the Dodd–Frank Act, ended the Bush torture program, got us out of Iraq. On the other we have Mitt Romney, someone who , looked him in the eye, and told him that he doesn't deserve basic human rights because he's gay. The whitest of white breads, who was born a millionaire and rode that cloud of privilege straight to the GOP nomination. So people are saying that Obama doesn't match our national ideals, and Romney does perfectly. And they just may be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 And tell me what you really think?What I really think? OP basically said "Obama's face looks weird, ITT Obama bitchfest." But the political reality is that this year we're going to vote on who will represent America to the world – who best represents our national ideals. On the one hand we have Obama, who rocketed from political obscurity to be the first goddamn black president. Took positive steps toward health care reform, allowed federal funding for stem cell research, made the first official statement in support of gay marriage, passed the Matthew Shepard Act after eight years in limbo, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, suggested and passed the Dodd–Frank Act, ended the Bush torture program, got us out of Iraq. On the other we have Mitt Romney, someone who , looked him in the eye, and told him that he doesn't deserve basic human rights because he's gay. The whitest of white breads, who was born a millionaire and rode that cloud of privilege straight to the GOP nomination. So people are saying that Obama doesn't match our national ideals, and Romney does perfectly. And they just may be right. Can i get a heyman! Beautifully stated. :) -- And gator, I have taken a statistics class, fairly recently too. I stand by what I said. If your class taught you otherwise, perhaps a better textbook is in order: http://books.google.com/books?id=5_ZKqfMXXuIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Here's your "Hey Man" :thumbsup: - sorry, still can't type very well, so just reading mostly, but loving it. You guys are great!!!:dance: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts