|
I vaguely remember asking my dad why he hated Clinton so much, and he said "because he rode on Bush's success for fixing the economy"
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
That would've been pretty impressive for Bush to bring about 8 years of unprecedented prosperity with 4 years of being president. Though if he's going to think economic policies project forward that much, that makes the recession that happened under Bush Reagan's fault. He needs to decide if he likes Bush or Reagan more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
I need help refuting a facebook thing, please.I posted:Poll: 56% of chesh thinks Americans are tarded. liberal friend posted:How many of the respondents can correctly describe what a Muslim is? I posted:96% of chesh guesses that figure to be at 12. conservative friend posted:I don't understand why they would ask the question in the first place. Who cares what religion he is when his economic policies will add more debt to the bottom line than all other presidents in U.S. history combined and his foreign policy spits in the face of our longest held allies while opening up the checkbook to people who state that they'd like to kill us? I posted:[citation needed] conservative friend posted:On the deficit, I was wrong. His economic policies will result in a mere doubling of the national public debt to $11.5 trillion (assuming, of course, that increased top marginal tax rated don't have the historical effect of reducing revenue to the government). wtf is he talking about? Like, on all counts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 08:46
|
|
|
He's saying deficit spending won't work, that we shouldn't rebuild the mosque's we bombed, and the guy building the Ground Zero Mosque wants to kill us because he said the U.S.'s policies were an accomplice to the 9/11 attacks. That's what he's talking about. Besides the first one, which really won't be proven until a few years from now, he's wrong. Drawing a parallel to saying "maybe we should of rethought that whole stationing troops in Saudi Arabia thing" to "I want to kill America" is dumb beyond words. The bombs we dropped on mosque's cost more than rebuilding them, so who wasted more money in that deal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 10:51
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, one of my ultra-conservative cousins posted an Facebook app-type thing, saying "I'm the xth person to protest against the Ground Zero Mosque. Click here to join the fight" or something. I, being the person that I am, asked him why he was protesting it. He said it was insensitive. I gave him the spheal about how we're allowed to build churches near abortion clinic bombings, but he still said that it's insensitive because 'out of all the locations they chose, they HAD to choose the one closest to ground zero'. Furthermore, his intellectually stunted friend joined in and said 'we don't know anything about the guy who is building this mosque, and there is no reason they should build it so close'. I'm honestly at a loss for how to combat such wrongness. Should I just give up and spare myself the idiocy-induced headaches?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
UltraPenguinX posted:While we're on the subject, one of my ultra-conservative cousins posted an Facebook app-type thing, saying "I'm the xth person to protest against the Ground Zero Mosque. Click here to join the fight" or something. I, being the person that I am, asked him why he was protesting it. He said it was insensitive. I gave him the spheal about how we're allowed to build churches near abortion clinic bombings, but he still said that it's insensitive because 'out of all the locations they chose, they HAD to choose the one closest to ground zero'. Furthermore, his intellectually stunted friend joined in and said 'we don't know anything about the guy who is building this mosque, and there is no reason they should build it so close'. I'm honestly at a loss for how to combat such wrongness. Should I just give up and spare myself the idiocy-induced headaches? I like to say "so there were no muslim office workers in the twin towers that day? It would give the muslim-american (know this isn't a term, but it works for this argument) families a place close by to pray for their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons who lost their lives just going to work." It's not a debate, really, but it gets them to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
I love debate, and love countering talking points with rational logic, but you've got to just cut your losses sometimes. There is no saving some people 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I love debate, and love countering talking points with rational logic, but you've got to just cut your losses sometimes. There is no saving some people I like leading people to the logical conclusion, and having them keep their stance for illogical reasons. Actual conversation: Friend: "I don't think they should build the mosque, not for religious reasons, but because with all this protesting and anger, something bad is likely to happen there." Me: "Yeah, something bad will probably happen, but they can't just give in because a group of people are upset." Friend: "I just don't want another tragedy." Me: "So they shouldn't build it because they're scared of what a group of people might do if they continue?" Friend: "Yeah." Me: "So the Muslims should give in to terrorism?" Friend: "... Look I just don't think they should build it is all!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
I guess being PC isn't considered a waify pussy move as long as it's in support of racist viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
Grem posted:He's saying deficit spending won't work, that we shouldn't rebuild the mosque's we bombed, and the guy building the Ground Zero Mosque wants to kill us because he said the U.S.'s policies were an accomplice to the 9/11 attacks. Ugh, thank you. You are awesome and smart because I seriously couldn't even parse that poo poo. Just to keep the thing rolling: liberal friend 2 posted:http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/12/CBPP_deficit_factors_2019_a8d9a.jpg conservative "friend" posted:I've found that the best arguments are supported by reliably sourced information. I haven't named the Godwin's corollary yet, but relying on the internet information equivalent of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is definitely a roll over and bare your underside move. OK, what the gently caress, seriously. I posted:First off, that last thing you said there makes no sense. Mike linked a graph based on a CBO number projection analysis done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which is a non-partisan think tank. Since you already linked CBO numbers, that's fair game, and no Godwin bullshit applies. My punching meter is rising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
quote:Second, you can't blame a guy two years in for all the wrongs of an economy that was crashing when the last rear end in a top hat was still in charge. True, but I would've used:
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Here's another awesome graph I found while searching for that one. "Portion of US gov't budget vs. Amount of Media Coverage" It's informative and pretty! My only complaint is that I'm not able to spend the time to find one that's high-res enough to make out the poo poo at the bottom. http://www.pitchinteractive.com/usbudget/img/barchart_v2.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
Ahh. you're right  Watermelon Daiquiri fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 21, 2010 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:What is that graph showing? I'm guessing the left side is the current divisions of the budget, but what is the right side? What is actually paid for? A future budget? The effects of the various departments? He said it, didn't he? "Portion of US gov't budget vs. Amount of Media Coverage" It would be better if there was some source supplied, though. I mean, what defines media coverage of a portion of the budget, and what does that mean in practise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
This seems like the most relevant place to put this. Not necessarily a forwarded email, but a facebook status chain message. This girl was Jewish in high school, but for some reason switched to fundie christian during college, presumably because of a boyfriend. Most of her posts are innocuous messages about how jesus got her great concert tickets, but then this obviously copy-pasted garbage comes out. I just had to put her in her place. Surprisingly, this status update was deleted 5 minutes later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
red19fire posted:"Press 2 to disconnect until you learn to speak English." This is a longer line than "Press 2 for X", so wouldn't this be more of a nuisance, since it takes up more of the callers time? Oh wait, thats not the point, I forgot Jesus advocated hatred towards foreigners...nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
It's like a neopolitan ice cream of right-wing boner inducers. The creamy classic vanilla of passive-agressive white nationalism, the sweet loving strawberry of the Jesus who agrees with everything you think, and the tough rich chocolatey manliness of the totally non-descript AMERICAN SOLDIER.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Burrito posted:I like leading people to the logical conclusion, and having them keep their stance for illogical reasons. My story has a similar ending. I posted an article written by Gladstone pretty much blowing any argument in favor of Mosque protesting out of the water with a systematic rebuttal of any point they could ever make. My cousin's response: "yeah I still don't think they should build it". Is it that hard to just come out and say "I don't like muslims because they're different"? Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I vaguely remember asking my dad why he hated Clinton so much, and he said "because he rode on Bush's success for fixing the economy"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
UltraPenguinX posted:My story has a similar ending. I posted an article written by Gladstone pretty much blowing any argument in favor of Mosque protesting out of the water with a systematic rebuttal of any point they could ever make. My cousin's response: "yeah I still don't think they should build it". It's not necessarily what's going on here, because there is a potential bigotry component, but it's interesting how this seems to mirror an item from a blog I had just read recently about how gut feelings of disgust can essentially overwhelm rational reasoning in a person. The article quoted this from A Very Bad Wizard by Tamler Sommers: quote:He presents scenarios designed to evoke strong moral responses ("It's wrong!"), but ones that are hard to justify rationally. (Examples include: having sex with a chicken carcass you're about to eat, wiping your toilet with a national flag, and, as we'll see, brother-sister incest.) Essentially, for some people, they're not using reason to deduce their own personal moral views, but instead are simply using reason to explain their personal moral views. The trick is, someone operating on the former level can be reasoned out of their position, because rational reason is the road by which they came to that conclusion. For the latter, however, you can't reason these people out of these positions. They didn't reasonably and rationally come to that decision based on a review of the facts, even though they may think they did. Instead, their gut has dictated this position to them, and they use reason to defend their belief. However, stripped of all reason, they will still continue to cling to their belief. Of course, it's also entirely possible that they're people who hold these beliefs because they hold other bigoted beliefs to be true, and they're simply attempting to hide the bigoted reasons in order to not appear bigoted. Whether or not someone is from column A or column B is rather difficult to know without the benefit of omniscience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
That's a fine example of the way people put their reaction before their reasoning...but insisting that siblings getting down could be written off as a bonding experience with no negative effects that never happens again is kind of rigging the game now isn't it? I think in that situation people are probably reaching for a better explanation because there are legit reasons that they're being denied using. They aren't realizing that this is to be approached as a completely hypothetical situation where we get to make definitive statements about their ability to keep a secret, futures, mental health and relationships. The entire thing hinges on the fact that you assume there's no downside AND they never tell anyone else. If that's the case then anything is justifiable. Or maybe I'm arguing from my disgusted gut right now 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:That's a fine example of the way people put their reaction before their reasoning...but insisting that siblings getting down could be written off as a bonding experience with no negative effects that never happens again is kind of rigging the game now isn't it? I think in that situation people are probably reaching for a better explanation because there are legit reasons that they're being denied using. They aren't realizing that this is to be approached as a completely hypothetical situation where we get to make definitive statements about their ability to keep a secret, futures, mental health and relationships. The entire thing hinges on the fact that you assume there's no downside AND they never tell anyone else. If that's the case then anything is justifiable. Well, but the point is that the question being asked isn't if incest is acceptable, but if this particular instance of incest is acceptable. A reasonable response to this could be a combination of issues, objecting to the hypothetical scenario while admitting that, in these extremely limited and fictional circumstances, incest is acceptable. When you're out of reasonable objections to the situation, this would be a rather acceptable response. Instead, these folks can't come up with that answer. They know, in their gut, that incest is wrong, and that it's always wrong. Because incest is always wrong, it's still wrong in this scenario. When asked to justify it, though, they're left without an explanation, because the scenario defused the common objections. Like I said, someone using reason to answer this question could still object to the arbitrary nature of the hypothetical situation, and that would be acceptable, but this isn't occurring to these people. They don't have reasons which lead them to the conclusion that incest is unacceptable in this particular instance. Instead, they have a blanket belief that incest is unacceptable, and use reason to justify the pre-existing belief. When reason fails them, they don't abandon their gut feeling, but hold onto it, even as they're being forced to confront the reality that they have no reason supporting their conclusion. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Aug 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
It seems sort of like saying "What if you could cure any person of any disease by rear end-raping them?" Maybe in that scenario morality dictates that you go on a rape spree at the children's hospital but I still wouldn't blame people for saying "ew...", nor do I think their reaction one way or the other proves anything. I think the usefulness of the hypothetical hinges somewhat on the realism of the scenario.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
Doomclown posted:It seems sort of like saying "What if you could cure any person of any disease by rear end-raping them?" Maybe in that scenario morality dictates that you go on a rape spree at the children's hospital but I still wouldn't blame people for saying "ew...", nor do I think their reaction one way or the other proves anything. I think the usefulness of the hypothetical hinges somewhat on the realism of the scenario. The usefulness of the hypothetical doesn't necessarily hinge upon reality. Now, the adaptability of such a conclusion drawn in a hypothetical scenario to reality, that certainly does hinge upon the realism of the situation. That's why the stupid "ticking time bomb" hypothetical situations are rhetorical garbage and aren't a valid way of arguing for torture of real people. And it's perfectly acceptable to say that such a scenario might make a person feel gross about such a situation and conclusion. But if you allow your personal revulsion to make the decision when no rational evidence supports your conclusion, then that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Aug 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
the yellow dart posted:I like how it is a massive freak out over essentially returning to the tax levels pre-2001, which still has the US at some of the lowest taxes in the Western world, and which were predicated on a solid economy and the surpluses of the Clinton era. Oh but lets cut more taxes so we can fix the deficit trickle down Milton Friedman Jesus-Reagan  It's a big deal if you're a loving millionaire or a loving millionaire-to-be!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
Won't someone please think of the millionaires?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
B-b-b-b-b-buuut the DEATH TAX! Edit: I was aware, I just wish they were more expanded. I make decent coin yet only paid something like 10% in taxes last year. Granted the govt. pays me anyway, but it seems ridiculous that a well-payed single individual such as myself pays relatively nothing in taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 08:24
|
|
|
Just got one from my step-dad:quote:Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country lately: illegal immigration, BP oil spill, and alligators attacking people in Florida .
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
Classy. I don't suppose any of the people using Bible for political purposes has ever taken the bit about "you shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name" seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
The bit about not using the constitution anymore cracked me up, I like this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Just got one from my step-dad: Did you reply that we already have one? (Yes I know it doesn't run the whole length).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Whatev posted:FYI, the numbers that email gives are bullshit. The Bush tax cuts will only expire for the upper two brackets. I was under the impression that all tax brackets will be increased unless congress acts.. anyone? edit: here are the proposed increases as far as I am aware: - The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15% - The 25% bracket rises to 28% - The 28% bracket rises to 31% - The 33% bracket rises to 36% - The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
akula posted:I was under the impression that all tax brackets will be increased unless congress acts.. anyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
Davish Krail posted:The source being? When people talk about the "Bush tax cuts", they're referring to the unprecedented low tax rates for the most wealthy in the country, not his cuts for low and middle class families. Without action, he's right. All of those brackets would change. Of course, no one is talking about taking no action. The Democrats plan to extend the tax cuts for lower and middle class families, and let the tax cuts on the upper brackets expire. The Republicans are trying to scream their head off to get everything extended, even the tax cuts for the wealthy. The tax cuts were a single bill passed under reconciliation, and so all of those cuts expire at once. Without some action, all of the tax cuts will expire this year. Republicans are just trying to hold the extension of the tax cuts for the lower tax brackets as a bargaining chip to get the tax cuts for the upper brackets extended as well. You'll notice that's why the phrasing is usually "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy". That's referring to the cuts to the top brackets, and so you'll have politicians say "We will let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire". They're not talking about the whole package, but only the tax cuts for the higher tax brackets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
quote:Of course, no one is talking about taking no action. No one is advocating taking no action. The right wing is loudly talking about the consequences of taking no action and attempting to paint it as if that's what the left wants to do. Which is a completely dishonest and bad faith argument designed to scare people into supporting extending all of them by pretending that it's all or nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Just received this from my dad, who likes to borrow ideas from the extreme left and extreme right, depending on his mood:quote:
I responded with this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOyqtLy1hv8
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
I like how he thinks early 1900s America was one of the most prosperous countries in the world when we were still pretty much considered a backwater to Europe. Hell, 100 years ago most of the American West still wasn't made into states yet (I'm looking at you, Arizona!).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
the yellow dart posted:I like how he thinks early 1900s America was one of the most prosperous countries in the world when we were still pretty much considered a backwater to Europe. Hell, 100 years ago most of the American West still wasn't made into states yet (I'm looking at you, Arizona!). But...no..no. You're just too young to remember, but back then, it was wonderful. *sighs in nostalgia*
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
Neckbeard v. 2.0 posted:But...no..no. You're just too young to remember, but back then, it was wonderful. Fine, then we'll go to the Greatest Generation. Surely World War 2 was when we overtook the rest of the world, there was no debt, taxes were low, and we were absolutely the major superpower of the world.   God drat facts getting in the way of my blissful fondness for days gone by 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
That whole list boils down to "I like nice things but don't want to pay for them  "
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 16:15
|
|
