Stuff Republicans say.

[Monk Of Reason]

I propose a new way of debating politics. Instead of talking about figures and this vague way that they present some kind of position on these issues lets only utilize specific instances of actions.

Instead of

"Politician X is the reason why our economy is the crapper. Politician Y says this in their campaign."

We do

"Bill Number ????? was proposed by congressmen Z and it has had subsequent effects on the economy as supported by this study <link provided>"

 

[Revoltingest]

Where did I mention "Bush's" name? You specifically said I was blaiming "Bush" yet my post didn't contain his name at all......which means your inference was wrong.

When you say "previous administration" with respect to Obama's administration,
it is reasonable to infer that you mean Bush's administration.

Why are you backpeddling and bringing up something that has nothing to do with you saying I was blaming Bush when I NEVER mentioned the man's name....??????

Two big problems:
1) "Backpedaling" is the correct word.
2) "Backpedaling" is incorrect in this sense, ie, my referring to an historical example
of your bizarrely opposite inference from my several clear statements supporting
Obama's right to speak.

But I never mentioned Bush by name. When I said (previous administration) it was in reference to the overall decisions and policies. You brought up Bush....not me...

If you really want to beat a dead horse, & salvage a broader meaning, then....
1) You said "administration", which is singular rather than plural.
2) The singular administration immediately preceding Obama's was Bush's.
3) The problems aren't limited in origin to those 8 years.

Let's just say that we agree that Obama inherited many problems which were a long
time coming. How's that for detente?

So what. This has been obvious for a while now. We all see the similarities between the two but we can also see some obvious differences. This is a known fact with every administration.

Not always. The Carter to Reagan transition was striking in the differences.

 

[sun rise]

Well not exactly. You do recall the Democrats passed the "Nuclear Option"
.

Not exactly. You missed the details. That only applies to Presidential appointments to his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet and to judges outside of the Supreme Court. The filibuster is still possible for all bills and for the Supreme Court. And that was only because the Republican party was trying to destroy the country by stopping critical appointments in a scorched earth policy designed to get them into power no matter what that did to the country.

And that was quite openly declared by the Republican party - that their goal was not governing but in making President Obama a one term president no matter what the cost to the country.

 

[sun rise]

I propose a new way of debating politics. Instead of talking about figures and this vague way that they present some kind of position on these issues lets only utilize specific instances of actions.

Instead of

"Politician X is the reason why our economy is the crapper. Politician Y says this in their campaign."

We do

"Bill Number ????? was proposed by congressmen Z and it has had subsequent effects on the economy as supported by this study <link provided>"

That's a nice idea but life is more complicated and lying with statistics and even outright lying is a quite well known and the reason we have so many fact-checking organizations.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When you say "previous administration" with respect to Obama's administration,
it is reasonable to infer that you mean Bush's administration.

You said I was blaming Bush. You didn't say anything about the administration. I specifically said (previous administration) which encompassed Bush but my response was not solely about the man which I explain in my last post.. Why such a big deal over your incorrect inference?

If you really want to beat a dead horse, & salvage a broader meaning, then....
1) You said "administration", which is singular rather than plural.
2) The singular administration immediately preceding Obama's was Bush's.
3) The problems aren't limited in origin to those 8 years.

OK.....But it doesn't change the overall point I was making.

Let's just say that we agree that Obama inherited many problems which were a long
time coming. How's that for detente?

Well yeah. I certainly don't deny that. That is the nature with every presidency.

Not always. The Carter to Reagan transition was striking in the differences.

True. They had some minute similarities but their differences were vast.

 

[YmirGF]

Now I have made statements in this forum that were inaccurate or wrong, but at least I have admitted I was wrong or did not use the right wording to convey my thoughts.

What I find disturbing is Democrats seem oblivious to the fact that what is now used to stop Republicans WILL be used in the future to stop Democrats who find themselves in a similar position. It's almost as if the Dems never expect to lose the Senate in the foreseeable future.

 

[esmith]

Second question first - Democrats can filibuster everything in the Senate just like the Republicans are doing now without a majority.

Originally Posted by esmith
Well not exactly. You do recall the Democrats passed the "Nuclear Option"

Not exactly. You missed the details. That only applies to Presidential appointments to his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet and to judges outside of the Supreme Court. The filibuster is still possible for all bills and for the Supreme Court. And that was only because the Republican party was trying to destroy the country by stopping critical appointments in a scorched earth policy designed to get them into power no matter what that did to the country.

I hate to be a nitpicker, but when someone makes a statement then attempts to then basically tells me that I made a mistake I have to respond. You will note in your above statement (highlighted in red) that you made an all inclusive statement then tell me that I was incorrect. Now I have made statements in this forum that were inaccurate or wrong, but at least I have admitted I was wrong or did not use the right wording to convey my thoughts.

 

[metis]

You wouldn't be raising the wage of just 4.3% of workers, you would be raising the wage of everyone who gets paid below the intended increase. For example, if we increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour we wouldn't be just boosting 4.3% of earners, we would be boosting nearly 40% of earners.

So it depends on what we are raising the wage to. $8.00 per hour? No, that would neither help the economy nor the people getting the increase. $15.00 per hour? Yes, giving 40% of the workforce a livable wage would absolutely help the economy.

Think of it like "trickle up economics". It's sort of like trickle down economics except since the money would be going to the poor instead of the wealthy nearly all of it would be immediately reinvested in local economies rather than a percentage of it invested globally and the rest hoarded.

And I have seen some studies that verify this, but not without a "hiccup".

When the minimum wage is raised substantially, it is normal to see an increase in the unemployment rate as some companies will cut back, but this tends to be temporary. As lower-income people earn more money, they will tend to spend it at a rate higher than those in the middle or upper-income categories, thus driving up demand, thus driving down unemployment.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's a nice idea but life is more complicated and lying with statistics and even outright lying is a quite well known and the reason we have so many fact-checking organizations.

I'm not saying we need to fall into fact only debate. But that we need to single out specific instances in the law or government rather than "people" or even worse "parties" as a whole.

 

[Revoltingest]

You said I was blaming Bush. You didn't say anything about the administration. I specifically said (previous administration) which encompassed Bush but my response was not solely about the man which I explain in my last post.. Why such a big deal over your incorrect inference?

"Solely" is useful a new qualifier. It seems that I inferred what you intended.

OK.....But it doesn't change the overall point I was making.

It now seems we are closer than you previously thought.

Well yeah. I certainly don't deny that. That is the nature with every presidency.
True. They had some minute similarities but their differences were vast.

Woo hoo! Detente!
Now, let's not let our derailment get in the way of more posts about loopy things said by Pubs.

 

[sun rise]

I hate to be a nitpicker, but when someone makes a statement then attempts to then basically tells me that I made a mistake I have to respond. You will note in your above statement (highlighted in red) that you made an all inclusive statement then tell me that I was incorrect. Now I have made statements in this forum that were inaccurate or wrong, but at least I have admitted I was wrong or did not use the right wording to convey my thoughts.

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules

 

[sun rise]

[youtube]c3D0DxjgPB0[/youtube]

 

[Revoltingest]

[youtube]c3D0DxjgPB0[/youtube]

Interesting...I'd considered posting this, but as an example of things Democrats say.
The video is a product of Agenda Project Action Fund, which was founded by a Democrat.
Erica Payne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought this anti-Pub ad was worth mentioning because it demonstrates that fear mongering
is done by both sides...contrary to Dem claims.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting...I'd considered posting this, but as an example of things Democrats say.
The video is a product of Agenda Project Action Fund, which was founded by a Democrat.
Erica Payne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought this anti-Pub ad was worth mentioning because it demonstrates that fear mongering
is done by both sides...contrary to Dem claims.

The fact that add is only being ran in contested states is very telling.

 

[sun rise]

Interesting...I'd considered posting this, but as an example of things Democrats say.
The video is a product of Agenda Project Action Fund, which was founded by a Democrat.
Erica Payne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought this anti-Pub ad was worth mentioning because it demonstrates that fear mongering
is done by both sides...contrary to Dem claims.

I agree it certainly is fear mongering - generating fear is a standard political tactic. And it's important to be as objective as possible when considering such claims.

The reason I think it's an objective problem is what happened to FEMA under President George W. Bush's administration when it came to responding to Katrina. I also put weight on the problem because of what Republicans themselves have said such as this famous one:

And another reason is what is happening in Kansas today which has implemented on the state level what the Republican party wants to do at the Federal level Kansas budget is running on fumes, and it could get worse | The Kansas City Star

So I on the side of those who believe there's an objective reason for the concern expressed in that ad.

 

[sun rise]

The Right-Wing Crusade Against KStew: How Fear Factories Like Breitbart and Fox Distort News

Over the weekend, The Daily Beast ran an interview with Camp X-Ray star Kristen Stewart. And then sites like Breitbart and Fox Nation twisted it to meet their agenda.

This is a story about the toxicity of the right-wing echo chamber.
...
To recap: Stewart described her character in a fictional film, and then Breitbart (followed by Fox Nation, followed by Fox News, followed by their right-wing readership) twisted and transposed her words into a blanket statement on all those serving in the U.S. military. Then, Stewart made a fairly innocuous, compassionate plea about how it’s “evil” to see anyone as less than human—even Gitmo detainees—because we’re all human beings and we, as Americans, should aspire to be more compassionate than our enemies—which was warped into “defends 9/11 terrorists.”

This is a case study in how the right-wing fear factory works, distorting and recontextualizing bits of news—whether it’s a quote, video clip, or what have you—to fit their odious red vs. blue agenda.

For the real scoop on how Stewart feels about the military, let’s go to Warfighter Media Group—a coalition of veterans from all branches of the military working together to create jobs for veterans in all forms of media. “We prove that the depiction of military in the media is always better with veterans,” reads their website. Warfighter Media Group worked closely with Stewart, training the actress for her role as Pfc. Cole in Camp X-Ray.

We are all so proud of Kristen Stewart and her dedication in training for her new role in CAMP XRAY. She is one of the hardest working actors we have ever trained, PERIOD. Her level of respect, admiration, and honor bestowed upon our nation's military is truly mind blowing, and the transformation we saw in her within only a few days was nothing short of awe inspiring. Her fans will be in for a rare treat when CAMP XRAY hits theaters!!! From all of us here at TMG, we salute you Kristen and will always be here for you!!

 

[tytlyf]

What Michael Savage said recently.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's not a good look when you insult voters while trying to help someone win an election....The Republican Co-Chair - Sharon Day had this to say about Wisconsin voters......

It's Probably Not The Best Idea To Insult Wisconsin Voters When You're Trying To Win A Close Election

Sharon Day, the co-chair, told the audience, "It's not going to be an easy election, it's a close election. Like I said, much closer than I can even understand why.

"I don't want to say anything about your Wisconsin voters but, some of them might not be as sharp as a knife."

 

[esmith]

It's not a good look when you insult voters while trying to help someone win an election....The Republican Co-Chair - Sharon Day had this to say about Wisconsin voters......

It's Probably Not The Best Idea To Insult Wisconsin Voters When You're Trying To Win A Close Election

Quote:
Sharon Day, the co-chair, told the audience, "It's not going to be an easy election, it's a close election. Like I said, much closer than I can even understand why.

"I don't want to say anything about your Wisconsin voters but, some of them might not be as sharp as a knife."

Well, maybe if they vote for a Democrat they aren't

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, maybe if they vote for a Democrat they aren't

I agree with the statement. But I would edit it to include anyone who votes for either party and is a member of that party.