Obama 6(...66)

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Given you have yet to visit the link yourself, are incapable of citing a single word from it, but rather can only regurgitate the commentary of others who also cannot cite one word from the text, I can see this is going nowhere.

lol, How old are you anway? 20, even?

Do you see how childish and immature his post is, folks? It's obvious it's only because he isn't capable of intelligently debating the text of HR 3200. I've made my statements about the bill, and cited the exact pages to refer to and posted the a link to the unabridged copy. Because of his fear to take me on using the facts he typed up that little petty attempt at discrediting me.

And yes folks, I'm playing into his petty little game somewhat by actually dignifying him with a response to his post. But I'm not talking to him. I'm demonstrating something to the majority in this debate, opponents of HR 3200. This is the type of ignorance you folks will have to endure and overcome.

It's very easy to overcome though. Once you determine someone's just a little soldier who marches to the drumbeat, don't worry about them - they are beneath someone like yourself who is armed with facts. You could argue with them until you're blue in the face but at the end of the day they will still be bleating, "2 feet bad! 4 feet good! 2 feet bad! 4 feet good!"

Don't worry about these people, peon soldiers and their hollow drumbeat are beneath you - you're looking for big game, those that actually have a mind of their own and allow new facts into their reasoning. Seek out those few that are willing to engage you truthfully and intellectually.

Don't worry about the personal slander and the attempts to discredit and all the other mud the soldiers sling your way, either. Stick to the issues and don't get sidetracked, and the facts always prove to ring louder than their little drumbeat.

Always give them one last chance to engage you as you boot them out the door. They never will, but that last petty comment they make when you shut the door on them is further proof to the audience that they're nothing but peons. Always one last chance:

____________________

So Slappie, the ball's in your court buddy. I've already made my case against HR 3200, citing specific pages of the text. If you ever become man enough to respond to that let me know.
____________________

And then you walk away knowing full well that you'll never hear anything from him again except for the bleating of, "2 feet bad! 4 feet good!" off in the background.

It's as simple as that. That's all you can do with a peon, anything else is just a waste of time.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Really? Cause The Ritt was the super-secret anti-terrorism uber-patriot with all the inside scoop on this stuff. Surely, what he was telling us couldn't be false, could it? Not The Ritt!!!

Or perhaps just like most of the Bush administration, he couldn't tell his azz from his elbow.

mmmmkay rufus. You need to not be a dope anymore if you wanna go on the Kum Ba Ya Jamboree and get your free stuffed Obama doll, mmmmkay? There's a good boy....

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Is a report from the Department of the Treasury under Bush a more acceptable source for you?

"Exposures" are what you'd have to pay if you added up all your legally binding contracts in today's money. Here's a brief analysis from the year prior to the report cited. (The comments are quite conservative, as you will see, ascribing a significant portion of the increase to "time bomb" increases in pre-existing entitlements. If you accept that analysis, then you could blame the increases on FDR or 70 years of ensuing Congressional and Executive oversight or the SCOTUS in the 30's for declaring the New Deal to be Constitutional.)

I don't have breakdowns of exposures by president, but according to a quotation from the report:



The question is whether Bush was in control of that increase. He was certainly in control of the wars and his budgets. Depending on your ideological inclination the financial misconduct that resulted in the crash and the bailouts were at least aided and abetted by his party's abhorrence of financial oversight, but that departs from math.

Yes. I was intentionally misleading with something that could be immediately refuted, because that's how I roll.

I'd expect that from dtp, not you. Thanks.

- The first link is almost 200 pages. If you're not willing to tell me where to find it, you don't think I'm going to help you prove your point, whatever that is, do you? The second link I've already seen, it's dated.

- And I was only poking fun at you for using a rural, citizen-reported online rag to help debate national expenditures and exposures. Kinda. I'm confident you wouldn't used that if it wasn't a direct GAO release. (Not that you're at all in the business of keeping liberal posters to the same standard you do of us conservatives, but just imagine the reaction you woulda gotten from them, ya know?)

- So exposures is basically what it sounds like. And I'm quite sure you knew I was talking about expenditures. I gave you back your orange Kepler, am I gonna get an apple or not?

- I don't think you can accuse Bill of taking a cheap shot when you muddied up the waters in a heated debate by comparing oranges to apples. I suppose every one makes mistakes, even yourself - so I guess in this case you goofed and honestly didn't know comparing federal exposures to federal expenditures is pretty absurd.... right?

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Yes. I was intentionally misleading with something that could be immediately refuted, because that's how I roll.

I'd expect that from dtp, not you. Thanks.

OK, so why did you bring up the 32T figure increase during Bush II's term, knowing that it was mostly unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements over which he had no control (nor would Gore if he had been in office)?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

And I was only poking fun at you for using a rural, citizen-reported online rag to help debate national expenditures and exposures. Kinda. I'm confident you wouldn't used that if it wasn't a direct GAO release. (Not that you're at all in the business of keeping liberal posters to the same standard you do of us conservatives, but just imagine the reaction you woulda gotten from them, ya know?)

I had seen other links previously so I plugged "$32 trillion" into Google and grabbed the first one that wasn't porn.

The only right wing citation I've seen that gets automatically hooted down is Fox News and they deserve it. In contrast I've seen HuffPo, Sullivan and even WaPo and the NYT get the same treatment -- HuffPo is on par with Fox or NRO, Sullivan is on par with the best of the righty blogs, the latter two are incomparably superior sources to anything short of WSJ. The source gotcha game is lame when either side plays it, though, when it comes to coverage of a fact-checkable event or statistic. Though, it is fun.

So exposures is basically what it sounds like. And I'm quite sure you knew I was talking about expenditures. I gave you back your orange Kepler, am I gonna get an apple or not?

I hate not getting a reference.

I don't think you can accuse Bill of taking a cheap shot when you muddied up the waters in a heated debate by comparing oranges to apples. I suppose every one makes mistakes, even yourself - so I guess in this case you goofed and honestly didn't know comparing federal exposures to federal expenditures is pretty absurd.... right?

I agree 100 percent that expenditures initiated by policy are completely different from expenditures resulting from inherited policy. So definitely my bad for introducing that metric in that way -- it was not applicable. I don't know that the argument prior to my addition was obviously restricted to expenditures, but ideally it should be.

I think it was pretty cheap to assume I was deliberately misleading because I think I always try to be honest (I do not, for the record, always try to be nice), but that's an exercise for the reader.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

OK, so why did you bring up the 32T figure increase during Bush II's term, knowing that it was mostly unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements over which he had no control (nor would Gore if he had been in office)?

See above (er, below.) The only purpose in posting here is to try to convince other intelligent albeit temporarily misguided creatures to change their minds. Trickery doesn't win that point, ever.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I had seen other links previously so I plugged "$32 trillion" into Google and grabbed the first one that wasn't porn.

The only right wing citation I've seen that gets automatically hooted down is Fox News and they deserve it. In contrast I've seen HuffPo, Sullivan and even WaPo and the NYT get the same treatment -- HuffPo is on par with Fox or NRO, Sullivan is on par with the best of the righty blogs, the latter two are incomparably superior sources to anything short of WSJ. The source gotcha game is lame when either side plays it, though, when it comes to coverage of a fact-checkable event or statistic. Though, it is fun. [/QUOTE

I haven't delved into the blogworld yet. Scared it will take too much effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. Although the time is coming.... the mainstream media is beginning to sensationalize themselves into irrelevance.

I hate not getting a reference.

Not sure what you're referring to there bro....

I agree 100 percent that expenditures initiated by policy are completely different from expenditures resulting from inherited policy. So definitely my bad for introducing that metric in that way -- it was not applicable. I don't know that the argument prior to my addition was obviously restricted to expenditures, but ideally it should be.

lol, So you you strayed from the ideal argument parameters to blunt my point? Because I'm a conservative I'm guessing?

I think it was pretty cheap to assume I was deliberately misleading because I think I always try to be honest (I do not, for the record, always try to be nice), but that's an exercise for the reader.

Muddying the waters, playing games, spot-quiz intellectual exercises, call it what you like.... I definitely don't think Bill was taking a cheap shot. "If this guy's clever enough to figure out my piece of similar looking government data has nothing to do with his, then it's all good - and if not, sucks to be him," is not what I'd exactly call unintentionally misleading or even not deliberately misleading.

If a fact is knowlingly put out there with the knowledge it is very similar in appearance but yet totally irrelevant to the discussion, you're gonna have a hard time making you believe you're on the up and up.... just so you know.

Anyway, I'm not calling you personally out per se, just that little stunt you tried to pull off. You can atone by showing you're "above it all" and run that trickery play again sometime soon on a liberal.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

- The first link is almost 200 pages. If you're not willing to tell me where to find it, you don't think I'm going to help you prove your point, whatever that is, do you?

I hope that your smiley means that you know how gut bustingly hilarious it is to see you type that.

That's what it means, right?

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The best part of these peeing contests is the usual he did it so its ok if my guy does it

That is crux of it. Both sides spend money they don't have the right to and have for the almost forty years I've been alive. Repubs like to spend it on wars and tax cuts for some. Dems like to try increase social programs and typically do so ineffectively.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Repubs like to spend it on wars and tax cuts for some. Dems like to try increase social programs and typically do so ineffectively.

If the GOP deserves credit for something, it's that when they set out to help their donors, they are VERY effective.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

"If this guy's clever enough to figure out my piece of similar looking government data has nothing to do with his, then it's all good - and if not, sucks to be him," is not what I'd exactly call unintentionally misleading or even not deliberately misleading.

I got lost at the end of that sentence, but doing that with malice aforethought is being deliberately misleading and like I said, while it might win brief Sophist applause it wouldn't actually change a theoretically neutral person's mind.

Whether anybody actually neutral has ever read a political post is another matter.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I did neither. If you think so, you are imagining things.

Noting that one thing is much much larger than the other doesn't mean that one or the other is being endorsed or not.

Too funny.

 

[Jon]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The best part of these peeing contests is the usual he did it so its ok if my guy does it

This thread amuses the **** out of me. And this is one reason.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I hope that your smiley means that you would have gladly looked at the link if Kepler cited the page numbers to look at - just like the way you so kindly did for Slappie and myself.

That's what it means, right?

Fixed your post, slick - nice try though.

However, this smiley means that I know how gut bustingly hilarious it is to see you type that pathetic little attempt of yours. I can't expect you to understand what just went down on this post, but those that can follow a conversation will.

(Honestly, if you're going to try to discredit me personally, you can't keep screwing it up that badly. Stick with methods that are simple, like repeating talking points from Robert Gibbs. Or just go back to fixating on Bush like you were earlier today, that seemed like a playpen you enjoyed. The big boys have important things to talk about. )

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I got lost at the end of that sentence, but doing that with malice aforethought is being deliberately misleading and like I said, while it might win brief Sophist applause it wouldn't actually change a theoretically neutral person's mind.

Whether anybody actually neutral has ever read a political post is another matter.

Indeed, this whole exchange has been a practice in Sophism and stamping out the fires it creates.

Very well. If you are indeed "neutral," then I brought up particularly fitting way for you to atone. Hop to it, firecracker.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

That is crux of it. Both sides spend money they don't have the right to and have for the almost forty years I've been alive. Repubs like to spend it on wars and tax cuts for some. Dems like to try increase social programs and typically do so ineffectively.

What I don't understand is why one side keeps claiming differently...

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Fixed your post, slick - nice try though.

However, this smiley means that I know how gut bustingly hilarious it is to see you type that pathetic little attempt of yours. I can't expect you to understand what just went down on this post, but those that can follow a conversation will.

(Honestly, if you're going to try to discredit me personally, you can't keep screwing it up that badly. Stick with methods that are simple, like repeating talking points from Robert Gibbs. Or just go back to fixating on Bush like you were earlier today, that seemed like a playpen you enjoyed. The big boys have important things to talk about. )

Consider the discussion you just had with Slap Shot.

Someone provides a link to a long government document and doesn't say anything about what's inside of it. No context, other than that he's telling you that it relates to some article linked from a third party source.

You get ****y about him not saying anything about the content of the government document. You feel like he provides no context or actual reference within the document, and without that you feel like he's talking out of his arse.

If you can't add that up to a pot and a kettle, then there's no hope for you. But, given your history of completely denying your childish whining in the health care reform thread, I'm not exactly holding my breath expecting anything. Considering that you've come into this thread

And for the record: I brought up W. once today, and only because everyone whining about Obama in the thread today was acting like his spending has come from nowhere. Everyone cites his bailouts and the (not yet passed, and Lord knows what the bill will look like if/when it does) health care reform bill. Since only one of those actions has actually happened so far, and it has a direct precedent from W., who just so happens to have also been a heavy spender, it makes sense to make comparisons.

If Obama's opponents are going to call him out as the worst spender in history (which is fair, if you make the unreasonable assumption that he somehow keeps this pace up with more monstrous bailouts every nine months), then its perfectly normal to put it into historical context- especially next to the habits of other spendthrift presidents. It just so happens to help that the other major violater just left office.

As for your shockingly restrained post replying to my "follow the money" comment earlier:

Per the wikipedia breakdown of the ARRA, at my absolute stingiest I probably have to give a serious eyebrow-raising to $150-200 billion of the $765 billion spent. I have absolutely no problem with the 55% of the money that's allocated for tax and state relief. Most of the energy and education spending is definately going in the right place as well. I never have any problem with government money spent on infrastructure (that's how you prevent stuff like the 35W bridge collapse).

Of the $500 billion or so that I have absolutely no problem with the recipients of, I do have to admit that I sincerely doubt that we're getting $500 billion worth of results out of the $500 billion being spent. Not even in the tax cuts. The only counter to that is this: you'll never get that. I don't care if it's Obama or Tightwad McThrifty in office. You don't ever get your money's worth with Government funds.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Oh I get it now....

Someone provides a link to a long government document and doesn't say anything about what's inside of it. No context, other than that he's telling you that it relates to some article linked from a third party source.

You call him on not saying anything about the content of the government document. You feel like he provides no context or actual reference within the document, and without that you feel like he's talking out of his arse.

Whereas you, Gregg, provided SlapShot the actual pages numbers on the government document to provide easily found support for your case.

I understand now. There's a huge difference between throwing an 186 page document to someone and what you did, Gregg, and that was telling them the exact page numbers to find the information.

I feel silly now for giving you a hard time because I now see it's two totally different sets of circumstances. I truly apologize for my behavior. I completely misread your posts and ended up making an *** out of myself because of what I did. My bad. I'll try to get the facts straight before I jump all over someone again.

Now let's reopen the discussion about Bush!

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,..................

Fixed your post again, slick.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

To cut the tension, I saw this commercial today:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCiTAJi1yRk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCiTAJi1yRk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

If you are indeed "neutral"

Another deliberate misreading; that's about 5 in the last page. I've taken this off-line.