| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I think in november we will get some balance back in our goverment, and we can all chill out. Can we all agree that one party having to much control is never a good thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | I think in november we will get some balance back in our goverment, and we can all chill out. Can we all agree that one party having to much control is never a good thing? |
I agree . Look at 2001-2006, only 1 veto and ZERO balanced budgets. Dem prez with Rethug Congress=Raging stock market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | he does make me consider issues from another viewpoint. |
Which is all I'm trying to do. That's why I (and Beck and TR hosts) so often say, "Google it" or "Do your own homework". People willing to do that see far more than I'm willing to type, can pick their own sources rather than be asked to believe the CBO or the Census Bureau or factcheck.0rg's take on something, and actually stand to learn something in the process. If I were trying to PROVE something I'd cite references endlessly, but education -- of others and myself -- relies more on rational and factual discourse than on nailing one or two URLs on the screen, and there's nothing like baseless irrelevant ad hominem to stifle the process.
However, most of the people in these political threads just wanna fight and bash the neocon (a label they lay on me often but have been unable to define; the dictionary definition is clearly not applicable) rather than actually discuss the issues and risk learning something. To conserve my sanity I have to try to identify them and if I so choose ignore or killfile them. That's the primary reason I do what you're referring to as labeling someone.
Another reason is brevity. Why should I type out “A health care system funded by the taxpayer and managed by the government”, right out of the dictionary, rather than just typing “socialized medicine”. Ditto Marxism, socialism, fascism and other such terms I use only when and only if their dictionary definitions fit the situation.
Lastly, I use labels -- when they’re accurate -- to leave no doubt in posters’ and readers’ minds just what kind of person or idea is at hand. Some posters are surprised to learn that they are one of those (I didn’t know the differences between liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, etc. until I was in my 50s in the 1990s); learning that they support fascism or socialism is shocking to some -- not to many of the guys here but to some -- people.
But the most important label I want to accurately and quickly apply is that of poser. MANY people have asked me questions in a manner implying they actually wanted information, then attacked the messenger personally after I did a lot of due diligence and typing, because they didn’t want to hear the facts … they were just constructing a target for their preordained venom. Most of those no longer grace my computer screen, but new ones keep appearing so I have to stay vigilant. The left has given whole new range and necessity to the concept of “paranoia”. I used to trust people until they proved untrustworthy; I had to reverse that paradigm, at least online, 12-15 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | Can we all agree that one party having to much control is never a good thing? |
Wisest utterance to grace this forum in a long time, and only mac or Chandler could dismiss it simply because an "o" is missing. 
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike's peeking again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1508
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | mat-ty wrote: | | Can we all agree that one party having to much control is never a good thing? |
Wisest utterance to grace this forum in a long time, and only mac or Chandler could dismiss it simply because an "o" is missing.
Mike |
And here you are, making up an opinion and attributing it to others only to attack them - before they've even responded.
I guess the smiley is supposed to make it okay.
matty, I fully agree with you here.
Unfortunately, one party can break the system, even from a minority position. As evidenced in the 2009-2010 GOP, which clearly is most interested in contributing to the failure of a progressive administration and their own return to power.
_________________
florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
matty said: | Quote: | | Can we all agree that one party having to much control is never a good thing? |
Matty--it would have been a wiser start to this whole thread, and I agree as a general proposition. A couple of caveats. First, in theory this forces both a certain level of fiscal responsibility and cooperation, which has been sadly lacking on both sides of the aisle for the last 18 years. Clinton was fiscally responsible, especially compared to Bush, but was also lucky in terms of growth. But hyper-partisanship has become the norm, and compromise something to be avoided. I have no doubt that the efforts at health care reform would have been better thought through and more fiscally responsible if the Republicans had been willing to stake out a few bottom lines and then agree to vote for a package that met those criteria. But there were two problems--they saw this as a road back to power, and much of the cost savings would have entailed taking on the Medicare prescription benefits that Bush crafted as a gift to big pharma. No movement.
Second, there are times, like economic meltdown, when stalemate is a very bad thing. Stalemate, to be sure, is the default when the president and Congress are from different parties. Two major programs came out of the last 3 years to try to deal with the recession and avoid an even bigger meltdown--the TARP program and the stimulus program. Both were fought by many Republicans, and are the gasoline that the TEA Pary activists try to pour on the flames. They are wrong on both accounts, in my opinion. TARP expired, and a rough accounting is available. $700 billion authorized, $386.4 billion actually dispersed, and $199.1 billion repaid--to date. That is a net of $187 billion, and declining, to stop the financial bleeding caused by deregulation. Out of that we got a restructured auto industry that might again be competitive--or at least a gradual restructuring rather than instant bankruptcy. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Analytics, "The bank bailout part of TARP was an astounding success. Couldn't have gone any better." Of course I wouldn't be mac if I didn't remind you that most of the fiscal accountability parts of TARP were added by Democrats to the one page Bush proposal. Those were largely Obama's fiscal team. The bill was supported by Bush, and gathered only a small amount of Republican support. Probably couldn't have been better.
And then the stimulus. The idea of a stimulus comes directly out of economic history of the Great Depression. Even with the efforts of the Federal Government, the amount of economic stimulus between 1933 and 1940 was much less than the contraction of industrial and state and local government spending. Ditto the recent stimulus effort. Peanuts compared to the loss of personal assets in the collapse of the sub-prime and housing bubble. Peanuts compared to the contraction in tax revenue at State and local governments. But I firmly believe that it helped cushion the recession, including for those dreaded enemies of the public according to Mike Fick, school teachers.
So there are times that it does help to have one party and an agreed upon direction. At all times, it helps to have real dialogue going on. Thanks for going that way on that latest post.
Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
coboardhead,
I can honestly say that I read virtually everyone's comments and opinions here, even isobars'. I think that folks should have a voice, regardless of their political leanings or beliefs. But over time, one learns quite a bit about everyone and how they feel about the important things going on around us. Things really add up after a while, but in particular, you get a clearer view of the personalities and how they express themselves. It can be said that one reaps what they sow. I think that if isobars was honest and introspective about his contributions here, he would better understand his difficulties here and why he has such a hard time getting along. But I'm afraid that's not in the cards, because he's a narcissist and he lacks a reasonable degree of humility.
Needless to say, the dialog and interplay on internet forums can be quite different than if you meet someone here at the beach. Speaking for myself, I have also met many folks that post here, but quite frankly, I rarely mention politics or religion, or some of the higher profile characters here unless asked. Usually, when at the beach, discussions are normally about our sport, the conditions, equipment, past experiences or related topics. It's extremely rare to run into someone you don't like, because most folks want to have a good time away from many of the complexities of work and their other obligations. I'm quite sure that if I ran into isobars at the beach, he would seem to be a much more reasonable character, probably because he would most likely leave his edgy political beliefs at home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm quite sure that if I ran into isobars at the beach, he would seem to be a much more reasonable character, probably because he would most likely leave his edgy political beliefs at home.[/quote]
I doubt it, Im sure he's the same douchebag in person and behind the keyboard. His stuff is just toxic right now, its hard to read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | Isobar's posts can be pretty informative if taken with a "bit of salt".
I have, actually, talked to Mike, I think - nice guy really. Being able to have a dialogue and discussion like this is great! |
Naaaah ... you have me confused with Bill O'Reilly.
A “grain of salt”?
Are you’re saying I lie, that I exaggerate, or just that I make unintentional misstatements of fact? Do you plan to back your accusation up with facts, or will you just leave it there like a turd on the dinner table like the last couple of hundred similar accusations from dozens of people who were also unable to back up the first two and the 99.5% who were unable to even show unintentional misstatements of substantial facts?
I don’t lie, and I exaggerate only for obvious effect (e.g., “so fast your shadow can’t keep up”). Anything I’ve represented as fact in this or any of the other half dozen recreation and medical forums I’ve frequented is pretty well checked out in advance. I can prove or substantively support most of what I’ve represented as fact, I can support my personal opinions with logical rationale, and I try very hard do distinguish between the two, so your work is cut out for you.
Please do me, yourself, and this forum this favor:
1. a. Show us a specific copied and pasted example of any lie or significant exaggeration I’ve knowingly represented as fact,
b. in full context with a link to same,
c. without the distortions, outright fabrications, or redefinitions of words so lamely presented by the small handful of your predecessors who have even tried to support similar accusations.
2. Better yet, show us how I was wrong by proving so.
3. Even better, show that I knew or should have known it was wrong when I posted it.
Otherwise, you look like all the other baseless, ball-less, ad hominem $#!+slingers defacing this forum with their juvenile and hollow “Liar, neocon, pants on fire” mantra.
My personal and professional lives have focused on facts (e.g., I've seen careers end when a military officer lies to his superiors), so I take great offense at being accused (by any credible source) of lying. Of course, an accuser’s credibility depends on his ability to prove his accusation to anyone of average or better intelligence (i.e., brain-dead sycophants need not apply).
When you give up on that, try finding an honest mistake I’ve not already admitted. I’m not aware of any, but there must be a few of those buried in my 20,000+ posts.
BTW, save your breath on Chandler’s accusation regarding Senators Clinton’s and Reid’s accusation that Gen. Petraeus is not to be believed. That was asked and answered when it came up a year or two ago, to the satisfaction of anyone with an IQ and a pulse, as you will see when you start dredging through the archives. Besides, Chandler doesn’t apply the same standards to his clones, so it reveals much more about his motivation than about me. In a nutshell, what would I be saying about you if I said I must suspend disbelief when you type (Clinton) and that you type only what mac tells you to type (Reid)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
