Down, Down, Down, it goes....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Joined
May 15, 2001
Messages
185
Location
God is Love
The U.S. stock market has been on a steady decline since Bush and his big business F.O.B's (that's Friends of Bush) took over. It was reported on two different media outlets this morning that:

-The Dow Jones Industrial average is down 31.9% year to date-which just happens to be the WORST performance this average has seen during the first 18 months of ANY U.S. presidential administration. (this dates back to 1925, btw).

-For the third time in three weeks the market has had a steady selloff shortly after President Bush commented on the state of the economy and corporate scandal. Apparently, the majority of investors aren't taking comfort in his words.

The stock market reflects the overall attitude of individual investors towards the health of the economy. Gauging investor reactions nationwide...they don't feel to good about the economic direction of this country right now.

As Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean D-VT said yesterday to Tim Russert on "Meet The Press" when asked about the economy, Dean replied "Supply side economics doesn't work". Dean is correct, imo, and the stock market's slide over the past 18 months is but one example of this growing sentiment throughout the country.
 
While I'm on the subject of things going down...here is another example that will surely make Republicans nervous. The latest poll conducted by Zogby International (a nonpartisian public opinion firm) released today shows that fewer than HALF-yes HALF- of likely voters believe President Bush should be re-elected in two years. This puts Bush's job approval rating at its lowest level since before Sept. 11.

The Zogby America Poll, conducted Friday thru Sunday, showed that only 47 percent of likely voters believed Bush deserved re-election, compared to 32 percent who said it was time for someone new. 21 percent were undecided. Pollster John Zogby said "Here is a president who was elected with only 48 percent of the popular vote, and more than 1 1/2 years later, even in a time of war, remains stuck in that position."

This poll suggests that if Bush doesn't want to suffer the same fate as his daddy (Popular wartime president whose economic policies ruin the country) than he better start governing more from the center and not the extreme right. Bush forgets he came into office without a mandate-yet he mystically acts as if he won in a landslide. Unlike the title of a previous thread suggests...it IS ABOUT THE ECONOMY...and our economy stinks. Don't be surprised to see the Dems pick up 25-40 seats in the House and add 6-8 seats to their majority in the Senate.
 
Where to begin?

1. The economy's been slumping since Spring, 2000. (Remember GW Bush MENTIONED this in his campaign.)

Guess who was President then - and for eight years prior?

BILL CLINTON.


2. It appears that stock market is, for the moment, following the economy rather than predicting where it's going. Other economic indicators DO show things are improving.


3. If investors were showing "irrational exuberance" during the recent market peaks (when stocks were SEVERELY overpriced), it is quite possible that people are now being irrationally pessimistic.


4. It's a bit premature to call this a failure of "supply-side economics." Remember that the Bush tax cut is VERY back-loaded, so we're not yet seeing its impact.

(Also, how likely is it that a Democratic presidential hopeful from the People's Republic of Vermont is UNBIASED towards supply-side economics?)


5. A thought about Enron. Enron folded like a house of cards, and Dems blamed the collapse on the ties to Bush. There are NO such ties to Worldcom, but it fell too. Isn't it possible that the politically opportunistic Democrats were wrong about Enron?


6. That Zogby poll shows Bush at 47% with a 3.2% margin of error. This means that the actual number may be just over 50%, so you're proclamation of "HALF-yes HALF-" is statistically insignificant.


7. Unless one's poll numbers have HOVERED around the same number, you're not "stuck" at that number.


8. Even if these numbers do match the percentage of the vote that Bush got (Clinton didn't get the majority of votes in EITHER of his victories either, though that comes up SO rarely), the poll question doesn't correspond. The more important question is "WOULD YOU VOTE FOR BUSH?"


9. Bush's approval ratings, while they have dropped, are still around 63%. That's not too shabby, and may also be a better indication of relection numbers.


10. If we're to discuss poll numbers and the economy, let's discuss:

(On July 19th), the Washington Post reported the results of its own poll, and the findings are strikingly different. The Post says a substantial majority, 58 percent, approve of the way the president is handling the economy (versus 38 percent who disapprove). The Post also found that 50 percent of those surveyed approve of the way Bush is handling the issue of "regulating Wall Street and the stock market" (versus 36 percent who disapprove). And 49 percent approve of the president's handling of "the issue of financial fraud and accounting irregularities by large business corporations" (versus 43 percent who disapprove).

In addition, the Post pollsters asked the following question: "Who do you trust more to handle the issue of financial fraud and accounting irregularities by large business corporations ? Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Forty-two percent of those polled say Bush, while 44 percent say Democrats in Congress ? a virtual tie, and hardly the lopsided situation that the Times suggested. Then the Post asked, "Who do you trust more to protect your retirement savings ? Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Forty-four percent say Bush, while 35 percent say Democrats in Congress. Finally, the Post asked, "Overall, who do you trust to do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years ? George W. Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Fifty-three percent say Bush, while 37 percent say Democrats.



10. We're TWENTY-EIGHT months from the next presidential election. These numbers are absolutely irrelevant in any case, and they're certainly no reason for Republicans to panic.


11. From the McCain-Feingold bill to tariffs on steel, Bush is NOT acting from the "far right." He has yet to use his veto power, and his domestic policy is decidedly centrist.


12. Even if Bush DOES "mystically acts as if he won in a landslide," I must ask: must a PRESIDENT act like a centrist if he didn't win the majority vote? Where does it say that? Why didn't liberals criticize Clinton for his stimulus package and tax increases following his less-than-a-majority victory in 199s?


13. It's all well and good to say that Bush's numbers are low, "in a time of war," but the war itself is being underplayed. What was clearly an attempted act of terrorism a few weeks ago at LAX is being reduced to an isolated incident - and the news is focusing almost exclusively on the economy, despite the fact that a military excursion against Iraq seems immenent.

Let's reevaluate these numbers once Baghdad is bombed, shall we?

I know what will happen: Democrats will accuse Republicans of using the military for political gain; bombing Iraq to pull up Bush's numbers. But these are the same people who are playing down the war - and playing up pseudo-scandals - to pull down Bush's numbers.


Same old tripe from the left: not the least bit surprising, and quite unpursuasive.
 
Achung Bubba: Where do you find the time to write so many opinions? Are you on the computer all day? Do you work? (LOL). Just curious.

By the way, thanks for mentioning Bill Clinton's relationship to the stock market crash. People are quick to blame Bush for the troubles, and some of the blame is warranted, but the Clinton Administration had eight years....EIGHT YEARS...to regulate the procedures taking place within our countries largests slaughterhouses ...urgh...I mean corporations. Bush could have saved face by starting his tenure with harder pressing legal suits and investigatory actions, but come on! Do you really think Bush would bite the hands that fed his campaign? Hell no.

This whole collapse shows what's wrong with politics in our country. Surely, the leaders of our country knew the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later, right? You can't hide trillions of dollars and expect the American public to roll over and let it continue. The times they are a-changin', and the depression is right across the horizon, You think the Great Depression was bad? Well, just wait for the Holy Fucking Shit Depression that's coming our way.

One last thing: Achung Bubba said "2. It appears that stock market is, for the moment, following the economy rather than predicting where it's going. Other economic indicators DO show things are improving."
Are you kidding me? Economic indicators DO show things are improving? What economic indicators are these? Are they located in the offices of those self-serving business stock brokers, because if they aren't I think you've step into a big, stinky, pile o' dog shit. Example that one to me. Please?
 
Danospano said:
Achung Bubba: Where do you find the time to write so many opinions? Are you on the computer all day? Do you work? (LOL). Just curious.

I'm a computer science student, so, yes, I'm on the computer all day - and I can compose at about 60 words a minute, so it's not THAT big of a a strain. :)

As per indications that the economy's improving, read some of the latest from Larry Kudlow.
 
I'd also love to see the evidence that the economy is improving, being that unemployment is on the rise, the stock market is passing out, and my dad never shuts up about how badly his 401(k) is doing.

Of course, this thread is a good example of how predictable this place can be: someone says something negative about the (liberals/conservatives), someone else comes back and says that the (conservatives/liberals) are entirely wrong and that they are just slinging (Republican/Democrat) party line ideology.

Can we please have, like, the Communist Party's opinion on this one? From an actual communist? That might shake things up. How about any fascists or ecological feminist anarchists? Come on, there has to be at least one.
 
Let's look at those GREAT economic numbers that are being tossed around here by some conservatives:

1. The unemployment rate through June continues to hover at 5.9%-well above the 3.7% during much of the Clinton/Gore years. Payroll employment through June remained unchanged for the fourth month in a row. The number of unemployed persons (8.4 million) was essentially unchanged in June for the second month in a row, however, the number of unemployed persons was HIGHER for the second quarter than the first. The number of persons unemployed for 15 weeks or more INCREASED in June to 3.1 million. The number of such persons has increased by nearly 700,000 persons so far this year, and since June 2001, has about doubled. The total employment population in June of '02 is 1 million lower than June of '01. Employment in manufacturing jobs declined by over 23,000 in June. In retail trade employment was down in June. Employment in eating and drinking establishments was unchanged. Transportation and utility jobs were unchanged in June.

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.

2. Investors weren't showing "irrational exhuberance" during the recent market peaks when stock prices were "severely overpriced". None other than conservative economist himself Alan Greenspan admitted last week while testifying before a Congressional sub-committe that it wasn't "irrational exhuberance" but rather "infectious greed" that caused the market run-up and subsequent downturn. Greenspan is quoted as saying "It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously." Why is that, Alan? Possibly because our elected officials paved those avenues, barely set a speed limit and took the cops off the beat? Greenspan sheepishly admitted that he was in favor of the deregulation of the accounting industry that led to this mess. He had said "that regulation by government was utterly unnecessary and, indeed, most inappropriate. I was wrong." he admitted.

Bottom Line: The unfettered free market system touted by conservatives like Greenspan show that it is the very essence of this economic philosophy to cut corners, not only on its accounting ledgers, but also as it pertains to environmental regulations, product safety, workplace hazards, wages and hours. The pressure to show short term profits is irresistable and if it can't be done legitimately than they'll get them any which way they can. The fantasy that the free market system is self regulating is coming to an end. Greenspan acknowledges this in his above statements-Congress needs to follow suit.

3. Countless examples exist regarding the failure of supply side economics. Look no further than the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan. "Reaganomics" was disastrous-his tax cuts for big business and the wealthy along with huge increases in defense spending caused our deficit to TRIPLE under his watch. It may be the same old "tripe" from the left...but at least it's credible. The same thing is happening all over again. The bipartisian Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a recent report, cites the number ONE culprit to the erosion of the 5.6 trillion dollar surplus that had been projected over the next 10 years (of which only 1.6 trillion remained in January of this year) directly to Bush's 1.3 trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthy. CBO reported that over 2/3 of the lost surplus is due to the Bush tax cut. All of this before Bush's "guns and tax cuts" budget for fiscal year 2003 reached Congress. That budget calls for the largest increase in military spending in two decades (15% jump from last year) a doublilng of homeland security, and yet another round of lopsided tax cuts. This round of tax cuts would slice another 591 billion in taxes over 10 years, with 344 billion going towards making permanent the 1.3 trilliion cut passed earlier. Much of the cut again goes to big business.

Bottom Line: Government surpluses contribute to low interest rates and increased private capital for investment and business while shoring up viable government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. As former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin said recently, "...we need to restore the sound, broad-based strategy that was so central to the prosperity of the '90's." Rubin further stated that he wrote last May when the 10 year tax cut was being debated that its direct cost-later estimated at 1.7 trillion including debt service-and even more important the indirect cost in undermining political cohesion around fiscal discipline, threatened the federal government's long-term fiscal positon. Bob...you were right.

5. I don't recall the Dems directly blaming Bush for the collapse of Enron. I do recall them (and rightfully so) exposing Bush's and the GOP's overall ties to big business and their ardent support urging deregulation of the energy, telecom, and accounting industries currently and in the past. Democrats aren't wrong about Enron or corporate scandals-especially when Bush has ZERO credibility on this issue. How ironic of Bush to be criticizing as President the very business practice he engaged in at Harken Energy. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Bottom Line: The GOP's big business ties render it incapable of passing tough legistation to reign in corporate greed and shady business practices.

6. The Zogby poll. I can hear the nervous chatter of teeth on the GOP side. Regardless of how the Republicans want to "spin" the Zogby numbers...the fact is it is certainly problematic for their guy to garnering 50% or less support amongst likely voters. The poll illustrates that Bush clearly has problems going forward with the electorate. The further we get away from 9/11 the harder it will be for Bush to remain popular.

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

To be continued....
 
Last edited:
paxetaurora said:
Can we please have, like, the Communist Party's opinion on this one? From an actual communist? That might shake things up. How about any fascists or ecological feminist anarchists? Come on, there has to be at least one.

Name one way a Communist's post would likely be DIFFERENT than these posts by "Like Someone to Blame".

I can't think of a one.

Moving on to the latest from "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.

Sorry, I don't agree: the stats indicate that the economy is not yet good, but IMPROVEMENT is not SOLELY tied to employment numbers.

Bottom Line: The unfettered free market system touted by conservatives like Greenspan show that it is the very essence of this economic philosophy to cut corners, not only on its accounting ledgers, but also as it pertains to environmental regulations, product safety, workplace hazards, wages and hours. The pressure to show short term profits is irresistable and if it can't be done legitimately than they'll get them any which way they can. The fantasy that the free market system is self regulating is coming to an end. Greenspan acknowledges this in his above statements-Congress needs to follow suit.

I think a handful of cases of accounting fraud does not show that such actions are the ESSENCE of the free market. Beyond that, most of what happened was ALREADY illegal, new regulations will most likely have detrimental and unintended consequences, and I don't see how any of this has anything to do with "irrational exuberance" - or how irrational exuberance is disproven by "infectious greed."

Countless examples exist regarding the failure of supply side economics. Look no further than the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan. "Reaganomics" was disastrous-his tax cuts for big business and the wealthy along with huge increases in defense spending caused our deficit to TRIPLE under his watch.

Ahem. TAX REVENUE INCREASED after the Reagan tax cuts.

(And they weren't just tax cuts for the rich and big business. Income taxes were cut across the board.)

If tax revenue increases after a tax cut and deficits still baloon, you cannot blame the tax cut: you must blame spending solely.

Certainly, military spending increased under Reagan, but the Soviet Union also collapsed trying to keep up: money well spent, I say.

Also, I find it amusing that you apparently think the Democratic Congress had nothing to do with the spending increases (did they oppose it?) and that ONLY military spending caused the deficit - the increased social spending had NOTHING to do with it.

Both the CBO and tax-and-spender Robert Rubin do not believe that tax decreases could POSSIBLY increase revenues. They are wrong.

The GOP's big business ties render it incapable of passing tough legistation to reign in corporate greed and shady business practices.

And the Democrats are better? You're either niave or in denial.

Finally...

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

All you did was assert (without evidence) that you "can hear the nervous chatter of teeth on the GOP side," and then you repeat as a conclusion.

Hardly pursuasive, comrade.

Bubba
 
Last edited:
The question is, why I am even debating this issue with this guy?

I should not expect anything resembling a reasonably unbiased eye when he clearly believes that Republicans are evil:

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...

Again, and just to show that this wasn't sarcasm or hyperbole on his part:

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.

This guy believes that Republicans ACTUALLY plot to kill grandmothers, starve toddlers, and ruin the environment - that things like environmental harm are THEIR OBJECTIVES rather side-effects of their policies that are certainly unwanted and debatably not worth the benefits.

Is it any surprise that he ALSO believes that Republicans are pawns of greedy big business?

And is there any reason to believe him?

No, and no.
 
Dude, come on. The Republicans are definitely owned by big business. Their interests lie in the lap of the corporations, not the stroller of the teenage mother.

I don't remember the exact numbers (I can get them) but if I remember correctly, something like 16 out of Bush's 18 cabinet members are millionaires... and several of them are billionaires. That's a record for the number of millionaires in the cabinet. They hardly represent the average citizen.
 
Last edited:
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.

It's similar to the assertion that you must be a poor, young unwed mother in order to understand the plight of poor, young unwed mothers - AND to work to their best interests. If THAT's the case, the entire system of representative government cannot work because you cannot have a member of every little special interest group physically present in the legislature.
 
Why judge Bushes Cabinet members by how much money they make? How is that logical? George Bushes National security team is probably the best this country has ever had. I'd put Colin Powel and Condelezza Rice up against any democratic people that have held their positions any day. The fact is that we are at War, and are coming off the defense spending holiday's of the Clinton years, Defense spending needs to be increased BIG time. Several of my friends currently in the Military can testify to this fact! The economy is down, and economic theory states that expansionary policy's to get the economy moving again are needed. Increasing taxes now will only make the economy worse. Tax cuts may not immediatly rescue the economy, but in the long term it gets the economy moving just like it did after the Carter years in the 80s. The short term may create deficets, but in the long term the economy will start to move again which will eventually increase the revenue brought into the government which can then be used to balance the budget and pay of the debt and other priorities.
 
So much to say, so little time....

Bubba stated in an earlier post that "From the McCain-Feingold bill to tariffs on steel, Bush is NOT acting from the "far right." He has yet to use his veto power, and his domestic policy is decidely centrist." ???? Where to begin. How about with these headlines from the Washington Post "Bush Team Has 'Right' Credentials" Article states that President Bush is "quietly building the most conservative administration in modern times, surpassing even Ronald Reagan in the ideological committment of his appointments, White House officials and prominent conservatives say." It goes on "...he (Bush) has turned to a large number of formidable intellectuals drawn from conservative think tanks, journals and law firms. The appointments have come as a surprise even to conservative leaders, who expected Bush, particularly after the disputed presidential election, to follow a centrist path closer to his father's." Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, stated "What you're seeing is an administration that, believe it or not, is further to the right than either the first Bush or the Reagan administration." Another article from the Christian Science Monitor states (regarding Bush's cabinet) "...Though the nominees ultimately prevailed, the sharp exchanges provoked by the nomination of Sen John Ashcroft for AG may indicate a public unwillingness to let President Bush pursue a conservative agenda. Faced with the difficult task of spearheading a decidely bold and conservative agenda from their boss..." etc etc.

Certainly dispels the myth that Bush is governing from the center. Need more evidence of his right-wing agenda? Let's rattle them off...abandoning a campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions, restricting labor unions and abortion rights, revoking ergonomic and arsenic regulations, deep supply side tax cuts including estate tax repeal, school vouchers, withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, withdrawal from Kyoto, packing the courts with right wing extremists, pro business environmental policies, a defense missile shield, pulling back from his original promise to fund the UN family planning center, reduction in American's civil liberties, privatization of Social Security (now THAT'S a great idea!), faith based initiatives, and drastic welfare reform that would 1)mandate more unpaid workfare "jobs", 2) Cut TANF spending by 22%, 3) Deny benefits to Legal immigrants 4)Make Parents with infantst work, 5) Reduce Access to Education and Training, and 6) Do Nothing About Time Lilmits. Need further evidence of this man's ties to the right? An abcnews.com article states "The president brought to the Oval Office a decidedly CONSERVATIVE agenda that called for a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut, controversial "school vouchers" and lower government spending."

Bottom Line: Stating that Bush is not governing from the far right is preposterous and denial ridden. His cabinet is a venerable who's who of far right activists with proven right wing credentials. Despite the Bush administration's centrist rhetoric this is the most conservative administration we've seen in the last 75 years.

Now, about those wonderful Reagan era tax cuts...

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. Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics" but I think Bush Jr. prefers "fuzzy math." At any rate...this type of message should be treated with much skepticism...there is no such thing as a free lunch. Tax revenues grow primarily because of economic growth which tends to boost revenues whether tax rates are going up or down. This is exactly why one can always point to growing economies that cut taxes and witnessed increased revenues at the same time. But the idea that tax cuts cause so much economic momentum that they singlehandedly pay for themselves is a delusion.

This notion that is floated around by supply-siders that tax cuts actually "increase revenue" is laughable. It just doesn't hold up. A close look at what really boosted Federal tax revenues during the Reagan years was not individual income taxes but PAYROLL TAXES-whose 4.3% average revenue growth resulted from a tax INCREASE, i.e. the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. So, it is misleading to state that the Reagan tax cuts "increased revenue" when in fact it had no such effect. Had it not been for the increase in the payroll tax we would have seen even larger deficits. Additionally, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut and surged only after the 1986 tax reform law raised corporate taxes again. Please try explaining these phenomenom with supply side theory. I won't hold my breath.

If you are STILL not convinced about these "voodoo economics" than look no further than 1993 when supply-siders like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey etc predicted that the tax increase enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton, which raised taxes on the wealthy by 40%, would surely bring on a severe recession. I remember the Wall Street Journal saying the budget deficit would go through the roof. I even recall Forbes magazine saying the stock market would crash. Of course, all these predictions turned out dead wrong-but if I am to believe that supply-side economics works and is true than aren't all of these disasters exactly what should have happened? This is exactly why mainstream economists consider supply-side theory a joke.

And what of the supply-side notion that lower taxes result in better economic performance? Well, the economic data does not support this. A look at industrialized nations shows that since WWII there is no clear relationship between tax levels and economic performance as measured as GDP. You can find fast economic growth rates in high taxed countries just as easily in low taxed ones. Interestingly, high taxed countries such as Norway, Denmark, and The Netherlands have out-performed the U.S. in terms of GDP AND productivity growth in the 80's and 90's.

Bottom Line: The real legacy of Reagonomics is a tripling of the budget deficit. You want to blame the Democratic controlled Congress? Well, you can try...but non partisian goverment statistics show their spending actions added only 10% to Reagan's OWN budget proposals.

Bottom Line EXTRA: Mainstream economists can show you in detail why Reagan's tax cuts had little or no effect on the recovery of 1983-1989. They explain that it was merely the normal recovery cycle you get after a severe recession, i.e. the result of productive capacity being put back to use after sitting idle. If the economic recovery was due to a true supply-side surge of productivity we would have seen productivity rates INCREASE in the 80's...but they didn't.

This supply-side thing sounds so good that I'm thinking of Bushwhacking my employees with it. I'll explain to them that I'm going to give them a CUT in their gross weekly pay...while at the same time convincing them that they will actually have MORE MONEY in their paycheck as a result of my stinginess. Yeah, I really think they'll go for this.

I'll keep ya'll posted on what they think...
 
Achtung Bubba said:
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!
 
Brother Someone.
Somebody is sounding a little shrill in this thread.:ohmy:
Perhaps GW can give you a few tips on cheerleading for the opposing side?;)

DB9:lol:
 
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.
 
Like someone to blame said:


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!





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. :rolleyes:

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 :heart:
 
Last edited:
Like someone to blame said:


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.

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


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



To be continued....

Now thats an UNDERSTATEMENT!

I still love you :heart:
 
Last edited:
The Laffer curve??? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 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 said:
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.)
 
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 said:
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Dude. Relax. Calm down.

Achtung Bubba said:


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.

[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.


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.

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.


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.


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?
 
Achtung Bubba said:
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, 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:

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:

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:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom