Down, Down, Down, it goes.... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2002, 04:59 PM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
Most of the richest Congressmen are DEMOCRATS - and I don't remember any teenage mothers on Clinton's Cabinet. My point is that there is little difference - if ANY - between the GOP and the DNC in terms of ties to big business.

Beyond that, it is difficult to say that, because many Bush Cabinet members are rich, the administration itself will work to the benefit of the rich - and the detriment of others.
Puh-lease!!!!!! Don't you ever stop with that relentless right-wing babble? You are suffering a serious case of denial! Waxing poetic about "...difficult to say that, because many Bush Cabinet members are rich, the administration itself will work to the benefit of the rich-and the detriment of others" is comical. It is a long-standing tradition of the GOP to enact legislation that benefit only the elite of the elite-to heck with everyone else! It's all about me, me, me, me, me, me with the GOP! The track record is notorious.

Yes, I do believe that indeed 16 of 18 Bush cabinet members are multi-millionaires-millions made off the backs of the sick, poor, and disadvantaged. But I'm sure they really care about the needs of the average man and woman.

Stop trying to convince yourself with philosophical statements that your party is compassionate...for it is not!
__________________

__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 05:25 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Brother Someone.
Somebody is sounding a little shrill in this thread.
Perhaps GW can give you a few tips on cheerleading for the opposing side?

DB9
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 07:26 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Like Someone to Blame:

With "so much to say", you should perhaps prioritize what you say. If I could focus on one thing, it is that you think Republicans WANT dead grandmothers and starving infants.


That members of the Bush Administration are conservative is undeniable, but that does not prove that Bush is - as you put it - acting like he won in a landslide or governing strictly from the extreme right.

Bush ran as a conservative, he DID win the election (as determined by the electoral college, which determines who wins), so I see no problem with him having a conservative Cabinet.

Of course, YOU would think it's a problem, since conservatives want to kill old people.


As per the specific policies, I see nothing wrong with placing limits on abortion-on-demand, providing school choice through vouchers, protecting U.S. sovereignty by ignoring the ICC, and defending this country through missle defense. If you want to call those an "extreme right" agenda, go right ahead.

And how is Bush trampling "American's civil liberties"?

And if we really want to kill people - as you claim wouldn't trampling on liberties and letting them live be a step UP?


The oft-repeated message that tax cuts will not decrease goverment revenues certainly has a definite appeal. It says that not only can you have tax cuts (and therefore more disposable income) but there need not be any cost in terms of reduced public services. In my book this is mysterious math.

Well, your book is wrong.

There is an idea called the Laffer curve. It says the following: if you tax at 0%, the government will naturally have no revenue whatsoever. If you tax at 100%, it will get very nearly nothing; since people will be VERY unproductive.

Thus, the revenue generated from taxes makes a curve, starting at 0, going up as you increase taxes to a optimal rate, and decreasing as you increase taxes BEYOND the optimal rate.

If we ARE taxing past the optimal rate (and I believe we are), a tax cut will generate more revenue.

Whether this was the case in the 1980s can be debated (I think it was), but revenue increases through tax cuts IS possible.

And your analogy of the employer cutting wages is a worthless one.

What is clear, I believe, is that Republicans DO want to cut taxes for EVERYONE - your meaningless tirade in the second reply notwithstanding. They want to cut taxes for the rich as well as the poor, so Democrats paint such efforts as tax cuts SOLELY for the rich, but that's crap.

I wonder, though, why would we want to cut the taxes of the same people we want to kill when they reach old age, the same people whose children we want to starve?


I keep bringing up your accusation about how Republicans WANT to kill the elderly, etc., etc., because it is such an OFFENSIVE accusation. If you wish to continue any political discussion with me, I suggest you start backing it up with something more than just mentioning ANWR.

(First, I don't see how old people will die from drilling in ANWR; second, you NEED to show how the GOAL is a trashed environment rather than something more reasonable - like less dependence on foreign oil.)

If you have an argument, make it NOW.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 07:54 PM   #19
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame


Puh-lease!!!!!! Don't you ever stop with that relentless right-wing babble? You are suffering a serious case of denial! Waxing poetic about "...difficult to say that, because many Bush Cabinet members are rich, the administration itself will work to the benefit of the rich-and the detriment of others" is comical. It is a long-standing tradition of the GOP to enact legislation that benefit only the elite of the elite-to heck with everyone else! It's all about me, me, me, me, me, me with the GOP! The track record is notorious.
I'm not real sure what your point is here. You whine and squeal and point fingers (at Bubba and I ) and say we don't play fair in here, then you post a re-hash of like 100 different threads that have already been posted in here and then say things like:

Don't you ever stop........ with that babble

and

It's all about me, me, me, me, me, me with the GOP!



Quote:


Yes, I do believe that indeed 16 of 18 Bush cabinet members are multi-millionaires-millions made off the backs of the sick, poor, and disadvantaged. But I'm sure they really care about the needs of the average man and woman.
Would you rather he picked his cabinet off of the street corners? Let's let the crack dealers and homeless bums run the cabinet.
I don't see anything wrong with getting the smartest possible people to key positions, obviously the superior human race of democrats don't either.

Quote:
Stop trying to convince yourself with philosophical statements that your party is compassionate...for it is not!
Yes, perhaps when you change your name to Bush to Blame and quit hiding behind instant issues that you've whipped up in a bowl that really have no substance. The economy has highs and lows, it was going bust before Bush even won the party nomination. Back then, companies like Montgomery Wards and Lucent Technologies were crashing yet I don't remember the me, me, me, me, me, me, GOP blaming Bill Clinton or the administration of millionaires.

I still love you though
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 08:05 PM   #20
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame


Bottom Line: These statistics show that our economy is certainly NOT ADDING JOBS under G W's watch. These statistics "indicate" one thing-the economy isn't yet improving.
Do you remember september 11, 2001?
Did that not hurt the economy?
If you are looking for someone to blame then start blaming the terrorists for fucking up an already bad economy inherited from the CLINTON administration.

Quote:
The Zogby poll.
Why is it that Liberals on this forum consistently bring up these things out of the cracks like the "Zogby poll" and we are all supposed to believe it


Quote:
Bottom Line: The poll is troubling to Republicans, especially when reminded that Al Gore did win the POPULAR vote my more than 500,000.
Please stop being the wounded Gore Loser

He lost, it was almost 2 years ago

Perhaps you should seek therapy



Quote:
To be continued....
Now thats an UNDERSTATEMENT!

I still love you
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 12:23 PM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 03:39 AM
The Laffer curve??? Now there is a real, um, laugher. The Laffer curve is resoundingly dismissed by all but the fewest of extreme right economists. Need proof? Look no further than the bi-partisian and influential American Economics Association. Of the 18,000 members in this association only 12 (that's NOT A TYPO), yes, 12, of these members called themselves supply-siders i.e Laffer curve enthusiasts in the 80's. In American universities today there is still no supply side economist at any major department-this is significant because much of academia was dominated by conservative economists throughout the 80's and 90's and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The mere fact that these conservative economists scrutinized Laffer's theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. Remember George Bush senior calling supply-side "voodoo economics" on the campaign trail in 1980? Well, he was doing so with the FULL backing of America's economic community.

The key promise of the Laffer curve is that the whole economy would grow faster with a reduced tax burden. He argues that economic activity would increase SO MUCH that it would rise the total amount of tax revenue. Well, they were wrong about this as the economy did not grow that much more after the Reagan tax cuts and moreover, the problem of distinguishing between the amount of growth caused by the tax cuts as opposed to other factors cannot be overlooked.

I think one must make a distinction between mainstream conservative economists and Laffer's supply-side theory. Mainstream conservative economists generally believe that tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts, i.e. fiscal responsibility. Laffer and other extremists believe taxes should be cut...period. Spending cuts and deficits, they believe, are inconsequential. Laffer believed that the economic growth resulting from tax cuts would be so great and the total tax collections vastly increased that America would simply outgrow its deficits. This didn't happen as we now know. Growth in the 80's was no greater than growth in the 70's-but the national debt tripled under Reagonomics.

Reagan bought into the Laffer theory because it told him what he wanted to believe: that you could cut taxes, reduce inflation, have economic growth, and balance the budget all at the same time. This of course didn't work. In fact, Reagan's budget director at the time, David Stockman, created the "Rosy Scenario" based on this Laffer theory. The "Rosy Scenario" predicted that economic growth would produce 5% growth in 1982. Well...1982 was the WORST year since WWII, with NEGATIVE growth of -2.2%!) Many budget watchers at the time said the Reagan tax cuts would only serve to increase the deficit...and they were right. A few years ago Mr. Stockman admitted to "cooking the books" before selling the Reagan proposal to Congress in 1981. An Atlantic Monthy article quotes Mr. Stockman as saying this about the Laffer theory "...the 1981 tax cut was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top tax rate for the wealthy." Stockman went on to say, "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle-down economics" and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. "So the supply side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply side is 'trickle-down." Mr. Stockman's "Rosy Scenario", based on the Laffer model, failed to materialize. The economy did not grow out of its deficits. Mr. Stockman went on to confess all about the supply-side ills in his book titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.

The Laffer theory is a prime example of oversimplification...you know, the tendency to reduce complex events to too simple terms. The Laffer curve is trivial-we know only three points on the curve-zero tax, 100% tax, and where we are currently. Short of cloning the U.S. economy and trying many different tax rates we cannot know the shape of the Laffer curve and have no idea if it has the same shape from one day to the next.

Lastly...I would emphasize (again) that industrialized nations such as Norway and Denmark have experienced much higher economic growth in the 80's & 90's with a much higher tax burden than the U.S. Another problem with Laffer's theory is knowing WHEN to cut taxes...if taxes are cut when the burden isn't high enough than you have an economic disaster on your hands. Most agree that in the Laffer model tax rates could be as high as 90% without decreasing government revenue, i.e. dissincentive to work.

I repeat (and this is fact-not spin) the increased revenue generated by the federal goverment during Reagan's tenure was the result of 2 things and ONLY 2 things: the normal return of the economic cycle after a long hard recession and the 4.3% payroll tax increase passed in 1983 by the Democratic controlled Congress. The rest is right wing "fuzzy math".

Bottom Line: The Laffer curve is just that...a laugher. It is a "fringe" economic theory championed by the extreme of the extreme and soundly rejected by economists on both sides. It has proven itself to fail...I find it stunning that the majority in this country who have supported the Laffer theory are not economists at all....but rather right-wing journalists who feed this ridiculous strategy to their masses in such publications as the National Review-the poster child for extreme right views. Yes, it sounds good in theory which is why it sells to these people...but it simply doesn't work and is rejected wholeheartedly by reputable and mainstream economists both in academia, public, and private industry who have no ax to grind.

My analogy of an employer cutting wages is far from "worthless" as you describe, because this is exactly what supply-side is in practical use. The employer saying "I'm going to cut your gross pay...but you'll have more money in your paycheck" is the same as the federal government saying "We're going to cut taxes...and see increased revenue, i.e more money." It may be "worthless" to you because you live in fantasyland but this is the real world application of Laffer.

I suggest you stop falling all over yourself with your perceived intellectual capacity, as if I am somehow being bestowed some great "honor" to have you engaged in political discussion. Your views are extreme and out of touch with mainstream America and the rest of the world. You conveniently spin your comments to reflect your own jaded positions when the facts say otherwise. You are in denial that your views are "extreme right" and genuinely "out of touch". Look, if I wanted invigorating intellectual political discussion I wouldn't be wasting my valuable work hours educating you...that is for sure. I have enough friends, family, and clients with MBA's, Phd's, and professional designations to "tax" my mind...they are a lot more reasonable as well.

You said "If you have an argument, make it NOW." Let me tell ya something. I make arguments and rebuttals here on MY TIME, not yours. Deal with it.
__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 12:49 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
You said "If you have an argument, make it NOW." Let me tell ya something. I make arguments and rebuttals here on MY TIME, not yours. Deal with it.
In other words, I take it you won't make a rebuttal.

Yet again, you make no efforts to either defend or retract your statement that the Republican party PLOTS to kill the elderly, starve children, and destroy the environment.

(You claim that AND call ME extreme. Amusing.)

You spend LITERALLY a thousand words to debunk the Laffer curve - showing how it's unpopular but never actually addressing the theory of the matter; producing numbers that are easily countered; calling EVERYONE to the right of you extreme - but there is not a single sentence in defense of your accusation of attempted murder.

Again, by claiming that the GOP desires and plots the deaths of countless innocents, you are putting us on the same moral level as the Third Reich and the Taliban - those who gassed Jews and rammed passenger jets into office buildings.

The claim is as offensive as ANY you could possibly generate: you are saying that Republicans are guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder. If you are going to throw that accusation around, you had damn well BETTER defend it and do so immediately.

But you will defend such a patently offensive claim on your time - which means you may never get around to it. How nice. The accusation of murder looms, but you never have to actually demonstrate that the accusation is the least bit valid. How convenient.

It leads me to only one conclusion:

You, sir, are an intellectual coward.

(And if you feel a MOMENT of indignation over such name-calling - similar to your offended sensibilities when I used the f-word - imagine how YOU would feel if you were accused of attempted mass murder.)
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 02:28 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Bubba, give it up... there's no need to play the Martyr here. The fact that he can post 1000 words debunking the Laffer curve shows that he is not an intellectual coward. You're acting like you run the show here and we all need to answer to you... just relax, and stop trying to be both a debator and a moderator. Once you take the argument to a personal level, (calling him "an intellectual coward") then you lose all credibility.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 02:34 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 08:39 PM
midterm elections will be interesting...
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 03:33 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
Bubba, give it up... there's no need to play the Martyr here. The fact that he can post 1000 words debunking the Laffer curve shows that he is not an intellectual coward. You're acting like you run the show here and we all need to answer to you... just relax, and stop trying to be both a debator and a moderator. Once you take the argument to a personal level, (calling him "an intellectual coward") then you lose all credibility.
I'm not playing martyr, but SURELY some accusations are offensive enough that they must either be followed with proof OR a retraction - or that must be banned from this forum.

The word "Nazi" can no longer be bandied about (and rightfully so). THIS accusation is just as heinous. IT should be banned or defended.


You say that his debunking of the Laffer curve shows intellectual bravery? I disagree. I believe the fact that he spends 1000 words on the Laffer curve to AVOID the more serious accusation that Republicans want to kill the elderly goes a long way to show how brave he really is.

Let's say, for a moment, that I were to accuse the DEMOCRATS of plotting to commit mass murder by killing senior citizens.

That's a pretty serious accusation, doncha think?

Democrats on this forum would have the right to demand evidence to back my accusation, doncha think?

Or would they too be guilty of trying to "run the show here"?


Perhaps me calling him an intellectual coward isn't the most constructive thing, but look at what has led up to this:


After this guy first accused the GOP of attempted mass murder, he REFUSED to give anything more than one shred of non-evidence - namely ANWR, which has nothing to do with the elderly OR children and is no proof at all that the Republicans' GOAL is a destroyed environment.

Rather, he ignored the galling offensiveness of his comment, focused on my reaction and that I called the accusation <gasp> "idiotic" and <GASP!> "fucking absurd."

(Apparently, the word "fuck" is FAR more offensive than the accusation of attempted mass murder. I had no idea.)

After that, nothing. Not another reply to the thread, much less a defense or retraction of his accusation.


Then, in this very thread, I revived the issue, pointing out that his viewpoint is egregiously biased - SINCE HE THINKS REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER.

In his long replies since then ("So much to say, so little time...."), he has systematically addressed almost everything I've said.

ALMOST.

He still neither defends nor retracts the accusation of attempted mass murder.

I calmly bring up the fact that he's avoiding the issue:

I keep bringing up your accusation about how Republicans WANT to kill the elderly, etc., etc., because it is such an OFFENSIVE accusation. If you wish to continue any political discussion with me, I suggest you start backing it up with something more than just mentioning ANWR.

...

If you have an argument, make it NOW.


His reply?

You said "If you have an argument, make it NOW." Let me tell ya something. I make arguments and rebuttals here on MY TIME, not yours. Deal with it.

He CONTINUES to avoid the issue.


Harsh or not, the label of an intellectual coward seems to fit - and it HAS followed my attempts to ask nicely for proof and his efforts to avoid the question.


And you, KingPin, criticize me for this personal attack, but you seem to find NOTHING wrong with the baseless and repellent accusation that the Republican party wants to cause the deaths of senior citizens.

Who are you to tell me about credibility?
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 03:51 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:39 PM
By the way, since when is questioning an accusation that the Republican party is guilty of attempted mass murder "playing the martyr"?

First, I'm not blowing this accusation out of proportion: it IS what he said (and he confirmed that himself) and it IS that offensive.

Second, WHAT KIND OF GAME IS THIS?

This sort of thing happened before. Certain liberals were calling conservatives NAZIS, and I objected. The reply was that we conservatives were "playing the victim."

Now, this guy is accusing Republicans (the "extreme right", i.e. conservatives) of plotting mass murder - an act that Nazis WERE guilty of. I've objected, and now I'm "playing the martyr"?

So, are conservative Republicans supposed to put up with ANY and EVERY accusation that is thrown at us? Are we not supposed to respond?

So you guys could call us racist, sexist, homophobic Nazis who want to kill senior citizens and other "undesirables" and WE would be in the wrong for objecting?

That's insane.

It's not something conservatives should be expected to tolerate. As far as this forum goes, I won't tolerate it.

If it is clear that this baseless accusation (that Republicans are guilty of attempted mass murder) is more acceptable than my objection to it, I'm out of here.

I will NOT put up with this.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 03:56 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:39 PM

THE DOW is UP 473points..
Whos FAULT is THAT?

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 04:15 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Dude. Relax. Calm down.

Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba


I'm not playing martyr, but SURELY some accusations are offensive enough that they must either be followed with proof OR a retraction - or that must be banned from this forum.

This is what I'm talking about. You're calling on the moderators to back you up. They don't find it offensive, probably because they know that if and when that statement was made, it was an exaggeration... yet you seem to want to take it literally, as if it was a personal attack.

Quote:
[B[
You say that his debunking of the Laffer curve shows intellectual bravery? I disagree. I believe the fact that he spends 1000 words on the Laffer curve to AVOID the more serious accusation that Republicans want to kill the elderly goes a long way to show how brave he really is.
[/B]
I think that he's spending those words to support his argument in the debate that this thread started about... the economy. His lack of response to you could be due to a variety of reasons... 1) He's trying to stay on topic, 2) he isn't going to let you call the shots around here, 3) he's trying to see how riled up you'll get, and/or 4) he wasn't being literal when he said it. These are all options that are just as viable as him being "an intellectual coward" that is hiding from you.

Quote:

Let's say, for a moment, that I were to accuse the DEMOCRATS of plotting to commit mass murder by killing senior citizens.

That's a pretty serious accusation, doncha think?

Democrats on this forum would have the right to demand evidence to back my accusation, doncha think?

Or would they too be guilty of trying to "run the show here"?
If you did that, I'd laugh at you. Similarly, if he said it seriously and literally, I'd laugh at him. I wouldn't demand any explanation, I would just assume that the person making the accusation was naive and not worht wasting my time on.

They wouldn't be guilty of trying to run the show if they asked for clarification, or some evidence in a calm manner. If they started demanding arguments NOW, and saying they should be banned, and acting like that topic must be answered in order for things to continue, etc., then yes, then they would be trying to run things.

Quote:
Perhaps me calling him an intellectual coward isn't the most constructive thing, but look at what has led up to this:


After this guy first accused the GOP of attempted mass murder, he REFUSED to give anything more than one shred of non-evidence - namely ANWR, which has nothing to do with the elderly OR children and is no proof at all that the Republicans' GOAL is a destroyed environment.

Rather, he ignored the galling offensiveness of his comment, focused on my reaction and that I called the accusation <gasp> "idiotic" and <GASP!> "fucking absurd."

(Apparently, the word "fuck" is FAR more offensive than the accusation of attempted mass murder. I had no idea.)

After that, nothing. Not another reply to the thread, much less a defense or retraction of his accusation.
Okay. The first post you linked to is laced with sarcasm. He's quoting something you said about how Democrats (the general term) have accused Republicans of wanting to hurt people due to their reduced spending. You asked if you were the only forum member who remembered this. He quoted it, and just repeated your words, only with sarcasm. That post smacks of sarcasm, and exaggeration. (it's also noteworthy that he says you've spun his words on a previous post... so technically the whole thing could have developed from you misinterpreting his words) Either way, it is not the serious accusation that republicans are guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder that you've been making it out to be. You're blowing it way out of proportion. The accusation you've been referring to is just him referring to one of your own posts.

As to the other link concerning the f-word... well, granted, an accusation of mass murder is more serious, but we can see that he never really did make that accusation. (it should be noted that in this post, he changed what he said earlier when he repeated your words... he removed your "kill the elderly" and replaced it with "hurt the elderly"... there goes the mass murder part). You're calling for moderators for his posts, and he's calling for them on yours. Technically, his argument is better, since you're blatantly breaking a profanity rule. Your argument is shaky, since his controversial quote contained your own words... and was a sarcastic comment... not breaking any rules. Whether you swear or not, I personally don't care. I don't think his problem with you is your language either... more so the attitude or lack of patience. You're pretty angry at this guy and you've made some bold accusations... I'm betting that is what made him lose respect for you. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that your behaviour and patronizing attitude has made several others lose some respect as well.


Quote:
Then, in this very thread, I revived the issue, pointing out that his viewpoint is egregiously biased - SINCE HE THINKS REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER.

In his long replies since then ("So much to say, so little time...."), he has systematically addressed almost everything I've said.

ALMOST.

He still neither defends nor retracts the accusation of attempted mass murder.

I calmly bring up the fact that he's avoiding the issue:

I keep bringing up your accusation about how Republicans WANT to kill the elderly, etc., etc., because it is such an OFFENSIVE accusation. If you wish to continue any political discussion with me, I suggest you start backing it up with something more than just mentioning ANWR.

...

If you have an argument, make it NOW.


His reply?

You said "If you have an argument, make it NOW." Let me tell ya something. I make arguments and rebuttals here on MY TIME, not yours. Deal with it.

He CONTINUES to avoid the issue.

Harsh or not, the label of an intellectual coward seems to fit - and it HAS followed my attempts to ask nicely for proof and his efforts to avoid the question.
Okay, clearly from his posts, he doesn't think "REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER" (you're starting to sound like a drama queen). I don't think he needs to defend or retract that statement, since he never really made it. You're asking him to apologize for a statment that you've constructed... a statement that is vastly different from his original comment (which, once again, was your own words, only with sarcasm)

You haven't really been calmly bringing up the fact that he's been avoiding the issue. You've been shouting it with capital letters, appealing to the moderators, demanding responses NOW, etc. He's avoiding the issue because it's ridiculous... fabricated... twisted... incorrect. He's not going to reply whenever you ask him to, and nor should he... we don't necessarily play by your rules here, especially when you're acting irrationally, misinterpreting people, and blowing things way out of proportion (like all the mass murder, genocide stuff).

The intellectual coward label does not fit. He has met every challenge and argument that has been fairly brought to him. What you are asking him to do is unfair... you want him to defend a statement he didn't make. By refusing to do so, he's hardly a coward... he's just not acknowledging your rant, or giving it any validity.


Quote:
And you, KingPin, criticize me for this personal attack, but you seem to find NOTHING wrong with the baseless and repellent accusation that the Republican party wants to cause the deaths of senior citizens.

Who are you to tell me about credibility?
Now you're trying to pin these words on me as well. You're right, I find nothing wrong with his posts, no. I'll say why, one more time. His words about the republican party wanting to kill the elderly was a word for word replica of one of your posts... only with sarcasm, to show that he didn't feel that way. In his later post, he clarified it by saying "hurt the elderly" instead of the more severe "kill the elderly".

So there really is no " baseless and repellent accusation that the Republican party wants to cause the deaths of senior citizens" as you say. So how could I be upset with Like someone to blame? How could I be mad at him for comments he didn't make?
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 04:28 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
By the way, since when is questioning an accusation that the Republican party is guilty of attempted mass murder "playing the martyr"?

First, I'm not blowing this accusation out of proportion: it IS what he said (and he confirmed that himself) and it IS that offensive.

Second, WHAT KIND OF GAME IS THIS?

This sort of thing happened before. Certain liberals were calling conservatives NAZIS, and I objected. The reply was that we conservatives were "playing the victim."

Now, this guy is accusing Republicans (the "extreme right", i.e. conservatives) of plotting mass murder - an act that Nazis WERE guilty of. I've objected, and now I'm "playing the martyr"?

So, are conservative Republicans supposed to put up with ANY and EVERY accusation that is thrown at us? Are we not supposed to respond?

So you guys could call us racist, sexist, homophobic Nazis who want to kill senior citizens and other "undesirables" and WE would be in the wrong for objecting?

That's insane.

It's not something conservatives should be expected to tolerate. As far as this forum goes, I won't tolerate it.

If it is clear that this baseless accusation (that Republicans are guilty of attempted mass murder) is more acceptable than my objection to it, I'm out of here.

I will NOT put up with this.


Oh come on.

Please.

People have slandered almost every group I'm part of, whether it's Christianity, or Canada, or whatever. I don't even know what political party I support... I don't even live in America. I don't agree with all of the democrats either... I think Nader is great (oh no!).

But I'm not about to take my ball and go home.

He never accused the republicans of plotting mass murder.

Anybody who does is clearly ridiculous and not worth getting upset over, because they're clearly irrational.

My comments about you playing the martyr are not based on you wanting an answer for a comment. It's you're embellishing and stretching of that comment. It's the appealing to the moderators. It's acting like it was a personal attack... as if he said "Achtung Bubba wants to kill seniors". It's your making demands to be appeased.

"So you guys could call us racist, sexist, homophobic Nazis who want to kill senior citizens and other "undesirables" and WE would be in the wrong for objecting?"

You see. It's this sort of thing. Of course you could (and should) object to such a thing. But such a thing hasn't happened. And it wouldn't happen. And like I said, if it did, I'd ignore it because it's obviously ridiculous.

"If it is clear that this baseless accusation (that Republicans are guilty of attempted mass murder) is more acceptable than my objection to it, I'm out of here.

You know, right now, the ball is in your court. I've tried to show you that that accusation never happened. If such a statement was made, then it would not be acceptable. But that statement HAS NOT been made. It seems like you will only be satisfied if Mr/Mrs. Like someone to blame publicly apologizes for saying (and truly meaning) that "republicans are guilty of attempted mass murder of senior citizens"... I don't think it's fair to ask them to do that... to retract a statement that wasn't made. Maybe he should apologize for saying that Republicans want to hurt the elderly... those were his words.

And bottom line, I don't think you should leave over this. Political discussions are not worth this. I think you're a bigger man than that. If someone disagrees with your political party (and not you indirectly), or even slanders your party, or even slanders you personally, I would think you would just accept that the person is wrong and forget about it. It seems like your more offended by his attack on Republicans than you are by other people's attacks on you personally, or their attacks on Christianity.

To draw the line at this discussion would surprise me immensely. Please don't. I would prefer to have you around.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 05:32 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:39 PM
KingPin, you seem to honestly believe he was being sarcastic, witty, or anything other than genuine:

it was an exaggeration... yet you seem to want to take it literally, as if it was a personal attack.

His lack of response to you could be due to a variety of reasons... 1) He's trying to stay on topic, 2) he isn't going to let you call the shots around here, 3) he's trying to see how riled up you'll get, and/or 4) he wasn't being literal when he said it.

Either way, it is not the serious accusation that republicans are guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder that you've been making it out to be. You're blowing it way out of proportion.

As to the other link concerning the f-word... well, granted, an accusation of mass murder is more serious, but we can see that he never really did make that accusation.

Technically, his argument is better, since you're blatantly breaking a profanity rule. Your argument is shaky, since his controversial quote contained your own words... and was a sarcastic comment... not breaking any rules.

Okay, clearly from his posts, he doesn't think "REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER" (you're starting to sound like a drama queen). I don't think he needs to defend or retract that statement, since he never really made it.

He's avoiding the issue because it's ridiculous... fabricated... twisted... incorrect.

What you are asking him to do is unfair... you want him to defend a statement he didn't make. By refusing to do so, he's hardly a coward... he's just not acknowledging your rant, or giving it any validity.

His words about the republican party wanting to kill the elderly was a word for word replica of one of your posts... only with sarcasm, to show that he didn't feel that way. In his later post, he clarified it by saying "hurt the elderly" instead of the more severe "kill the elderly".

So there really is no " baseless and repellent accusation that the Republican party wants to cause the deaths of senior citizens" as you say. So how could I be upset with Like someone to blame? How could I be mad at him for comments he didn't make?

You know, right now, the ball is in your court. I've tried to show you that that accusation never happened. If such a statement was made, then it would not be acceptable. But that statement HAS NOT been made.


Oh, really?

I submit that he was not being sarcastic, that he was INDEED accusing the Republicans of plotting mass murder. Let's look more closely at what he said:


1) The original statement:

Quote:
Geez, now that you mention it...I do indeed remember Republicans WANTING to starve kids, kill the elderly, and destroy the environment. Well, practice does make perfect...so eventually they might accomplish this. So much for compassionate conservatism...
I agree with you that, on its own, the post COULD be interpreted as sarcastic. I said nearly as much: "I hope I'm missing the sarcasm, irony, and wit in this post - because it is galling (though not that surprising) to believe that a liberal in this forum would ACTUALLY believe that the GOP wants dead senior citizens and dirty air and water."

But even on its own, it looks like it was more likely to be taken literally, since he tries to USE the accusation to further debunk the myth of the "compassionate conservative," a point he made earlier in the same thread:

Donahue devoted his entire show to discussing the Patriot Act...and hands down his right wing guest Mr. May of some conservative public interest group whose only goal is to strip us of our civil liberties and turn America into a quasi police state was aggressive, nasty and relentless as he berated everyone from a civil liberties attorney to a poor middle aged Muslim woman whose husband has been illegally detained since October...with no charges brought against him...other than being Muslim. Mr. May "personally attacked" the civil liberties attorney and insulted this innocent Middle Eastern woman on national TV. He showed an inability to debate without making it personal...that is what burns me. It was compassionate conservatism at it's best.

It is clear that he believes "compassionate conservatism" is a fraud. It is also clear that he was using the accusation of "starving kids, killing the elderly," etc. to confirm that the phrase a fraud. He wouldn't have done that if he was being sarcastic.

And ALL of this from the first quote alone.


2) The second statement:

Quote:
In closing, I would only add that many examples exist of Republican efforts to destroy the environment, starve kids, and hurt the elderly...I'm just not going to take the time to spell them out for you, well, ok...maybe just one for the road.......ANWAR.
You focus on the fact that he changed "kill the elderly" to "hurt the elderly." Truthfully, that is important; but it could just mean that he doesn't have "many examples" of mass murder, just mass harm.

First, while better, the accusation isn't MUCH better. If Republicans really DO make "efforts to...hurt the elderly," that's still pretty evil. If they DON'T, the accusation is still quite offensive.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you miss the entire point of this second comment: it CONFIRMS that he was being serious with the first comment. He DOES believe that the Republicans want to do all these nasty things, and he offers ANWR as evidence.


Above ALL this, he doesn't make any effort to correct himself.

If I sarcastically accused the Democrats of WANTING to kill/hurt the elderly, and if another forum member mistook that as me being serious, I would make EVERY effort to correct him - to explain that I was being sarcastic. There isn't a single hint of that from this guy.

By itself, the lack of a correction means little. Combined with the facts that Statement #1 appears to be serious and Statement #2 CONFIRMS the original as serious, it leads me to conclude that HE WASN'T BEING SARCASTIC.



If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow. If "like Someone to Blame" retracts his statement as being a sarcastic quip that I misunderstood as literal, GREAT.

But it looks like I'm right on this.


You concluded with the following:

Quote:
It seems like you will only be satisfied if Mr/Mrs. Like someone to blame publicly apologizes for saying (and truly meaning) that "republicans are guilty of attempted mass murder of senior citizens"... I don't think it's fair to ask them to do that... to retract a statement that wasn't made. Maybe he should apologize for saying that Republicans want to hurt the elderly... those were his words.

And bottom line, I don't think you should leave over this. Political discussions are not worth this. I think you're a bigger man than that. If someone disagrees with your political party (and not you indirectly), or even slanders your party, or even slanders you personally, I would think you would just accept that the person is wrong and forget about it. It seems like your more offended by his attack on Republicans than you are by other people's attacks on you personally, or their attacks on Christianity.
I will be satisfied by the following:

1) A statement from "Like Someone to Blame" that I misunderstood what was said, that he was in fact being sarcastic.

2) A statement from LSTB that he has no proof to back up his belief - that it is in fact baseless.

3) LEGITIMATE and OVERWHELMING evidence that an accusation this offensive is actually rooted in truth. What must be shown is this: not only that Republican policies would harm the eldery, the environment, and children, but that such harm is the DESIRED EFFECT from such policies. (I doubt that such evidence exists.)

4) Assurances from the moderators that accusations this offensive - particularly those made in earnest - will not be tolerated without legitimate evidence.

None of this is too unreasonable. And I have no use for an environment where this IS considered unreasonable.


Finally, I'm particularly offended by this accusation more than most attacks against me or my faith because there is no attempt to address my indignation at the accusation.

Most of the misunderstandings here are typically worked out through the system that LSTB is resisting: someone says something controversial, a second person calls him on it, and the first person typically tries to provide evidence or admits a mistake.

LSTB is doing neither.

So again, I call on "Like Someone to Blame" to either retract the statement (as being sarcastic - or whatever) or to start defending.
__________________

__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com