Anonymous
08/20/2012 21:52
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
hmm..either I have an instantly-recognizable writing style or you're using admin privileges to identify my messages. I hope the former.
in order:
"introduce that by saying "He's correct on all points," please re-read my post. I did not say that. You should know, by now, that I'm able to see both sides of an argument, albeit I weight them differently. apology accepted!
Umm, you referred to me as "Jeff" and I referred to you as "Anonymous". I'm not sure what that has to do with my admin privileges. If your actual name is "Anonymous", I apologize for inadvertently outing you, but I would guess this is not the first time having such a name resulted in confusion.
You may not have said "he's correct on all points", but the original post in this thread did. You seem to have focused on my post without regard to the post to which I was replying. Context is important.
A great number of posters in this forum are capable of seeing both sides of an argument. There is really no reason to pat yourself on the back for that alleged distinction. The fact that some posters -- and I admit to being one -- conclude that one side of the argument is either more factually correct or more aligned with our values does not mean that they are incapable of understanding the other side. Frankly, it is a bit tiring for the so-called "serious" folks to continually suggest that every issue in America has a happy middle ground -- ground of course occupied by those same "serious" folks -- and anyone outside of that middle ground is some sort of fanatic who should be ignored. People are authentically divided on issues. The partisans on each side are right to make their points in the strongest ways possible. To the extent that they can compromise and agree, that's great. But, some issues will simply have winners and losers.
But, let's get back to the article that is the basis of this thread. Niall Ferguson wrote that Obama broke his pledge that healthcare reform wouldn't increase the deficit, saying that the CBO had reported that healthcare reform does increase the deficit. Paul Krugman responded to that claim by correctly pointing out that the CBO reported the opposite. I supported Krugman's argument by pointing out exactly where in the CBO report it says that the ACA will decrease the deficit. Ferguson then responded to Krugman by saying, "I very deliberately said 'the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA,' not 'the ACA.' There is a big difference." Of course, the insurance coverage provisions go on the expenditure side of the ledger. If you leave out the revenue and cost savings part of the ledger, the deficit will go up. That is not even a point worth discussing because the ACA consists of both sides of the ledger. It is that argument that I described as demonstrating an "amazing lack of integrity". I would love to see how you, after considering both sides of the argument, could argue otherwise.
you play a good game of little ball. maybe a little garrulous, certainly humorless. and a healthy dose of the schoolmarm. but very earnest (remember "swimming to cambodia"? i loved his spaulding gray's riff on earnestness.
i don't think issues are 50/50. i agree on values informing views (hey...didja notice I just agreed with you? maybe a wee bit of reciprocity where merited?)
But Nats are tied tonight, and you have a near-religious fervor around your views that just has me wanting to move along. Yep..YOU WIN! wtg, jeff.
besides, the numbers are just so staggeringly bad and decaying it makes the rest of this fairly meaningless. yes, my values. when a govt is broke and reasonable solutions (simpson bowles for a start) are ignored, what's the point. bit of epiphany
i'm going back to the important forums..what are the "big 3?"
Jeff, for someone who doesn't care, she sure put a lot of effort into that exit! Slammed the door three times and looked back twice. Ha!
Anonymous
08/20/2012 21:30
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
hmm..either I have an instantly-recognizable writing style or you're using admin privileges to identify my messages. I hope the former.
in order:
"introduce that by saying "He's correct on all points," please re-read my post. I did not say that. You should know, by now, that I'm able to see both sides of an argument, albeit I weight them differently. apology accepted!
Umm, you referred to me as "Jeff" and I referred to you as "Anonymous". I'm not sure what that has to do with my admin privileges. If your actual name is "Anonymous", I apologize for inadvertently outing you, but I would guess this is not the first time having such a name resulted in confusion.
You may not have said "he's correct on all points", but the original post in this thread did. You seem to have focused on my post without regard to the post to which I was replying. Context is important.
A great number of posters in this forum are capable of seeing both sides of an argument. There is really no reason to pat yourself on the back for that alleged distinction. The fact that some posters -- and I admit to being one -- conclude that one side of the argument is either more factually correct or more aligned with our values does not mean that they are incapable of understanding the other side. Frankly, it is a bit tiring for the so-called "serious" folks to continually suggest that every issue in America has a happy middle ground -- ground of course occupied by those same "serious" folks -- and anyone outside of that middle ground is some sort of fanatic who should be ignored. People are authentically divided on issues. The partisans on each side are right to make their points in the strongest ways possible. To the extent that they can compromise and agree, that's great. But, some issues will simply have winners and losers.
But, let's get back to the article that is the basis of this thread. Niall Ferguson wrote that Obama broke his pledge that healthcare reform wouldn't increase the deficit, saying that the CBO had reported that healthcare reform does increase the deficit. Paul Krugman responded to that claim by correctly pointing out that the CBO reported the opposite. I supported Krugman's argument by pointing out exactly where in the CBO report it says that the ACA will decrease the deficit. Ferguson then responded to Krugman by saying, "I very deliberately said 'the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA,' not 'the ACA.' There is a big difference." Of course, the insurance coverage provisions go on the expenditure side of the ledger. If you leave out the revenue and cost savings part of the ledger, the deficit will go up. That is not even a point worth discussing because the ACA consists of both sides of the ledger. It is that argument that I described as demonstrating an "amazing lack of integrity". I would love to see how you, after considering both sides of the argument, could argue otherwise.
you play a good game of little ball. maybe a little garrulous, certainly humorless. and a healthy dose of the schoolmarm. but very earnest (remember "swimming to cambodia"? i loved his spaulding gray's riff on earnestness.
i don't think issues are 50/50. i agree on values informing views (hey...didja notice I just agreed with you? maybe a wee bit of reciprocity where merited?)
But Nats are tied tonight, and you have a near-religious fervor around your views that just has me wanting to move along. Yep..YOU WIN! wtg, jeff.
besides, the numbers are just so staggeringly bad and decaying it makes the rest of this fairly meaningless. yes, my values. when a govt is broke and reasonable solutions (simpson bowles for a start) are ignored, what's the point. bit of epiphany
i'm going back to the important forums..what are the "big 3?"
Anonymous
08/20/2012 21:14
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous
08/20/2012 21:05
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?
We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?
I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?
Interesting so despite never having to deal with these issues regularly or even ever, those issues should trump the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy?
Um, you are making the point of the PP: the GOP should ABSOLUTELY be focusing on the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy. When they do, maybe we'll take them seriously as candidates for governing rather than only being good for standing on sidewalks with plastic fetuses in hand.
jsteele
08/20/2012 21:04
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:
hmm..either I have an instantly-recognizable writing style or you're using admin privileges to identify my messages. I hope the former.
in order:
"introduce that by saying "He's correct on all points," please re-read my post. I did not say that. You should know, by now, that I'm able to see both sides of an argument, albeit I weight them differently. apology accepted!
Umm, you referred to me as "Jeff" and I referred to you as "Anonymous". I'm not sure what that has to do with my admin privileges. If your actual name is "Anonymous", I apologize for inadvertently outing you, but I would guess this is not the first time having such a name resulted in confusion.
You may not have said "he's correct on all points", but the original post in this thread did. You seem to have focused on my post without regard to the post to which I was replying. Context is important.
A great number of posters in this forum are capable of seeing both sides of an argument. There is really no reason to pat yourself on the back for that alleged distinction. The fact that some posters -- and I admit to being one -- conclude that one side of the argument is either more factually correct or more aligned with our values does not mean that they are incapable of understanding the other side. Frankly, it is a bit tiring for the so-called "serious" folks to continually suggest that every issue in America has a happy middle ground -- ground of course occupied by those same "serious" folks -- and anyone outside of that middle ground is some sort of fanatic who should be ignored. People are authentically divided on issues. The partisans on each side are right to make their points in the strongest ways possible. To the extent that they can compromise and agree, that's great. But, some issues will simply have winners and losers.
But, let's get back to the article that is the basis of this thread. Niall Ferguson wrote that Obama broke his pledge that healthcare reform wouldn't increase the deficit, saying that the CBO had reported that healthcare reform does increase the deficit. Paul Krugman responded to that claim by correctly pointing out that the CBO reported the opposite. I supported Krugman's argument by pointing out exactly where in the CBO report it says that the ACA will decrease the deficit. Ferguson then responded to Krugman by saying, "I very deliberately said 'the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA,' not 'the ACA.' There is a big difference." Of course, the insurance coverage provisions go on the expenditure side of the ledger. If you leave out the revenue and cost savings part of the ledger, the deficit will go up. That is not even a point worth discussing because the ACA consists of both sides of the ledger. It is that argument that I described as demonstrating an "amazing lack of integrity". I would love to see how you, after considering both sides of the argument, could argue otherwise.
Anonymous
08/20/2012 20:57
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Since Newsweek fully admitted it doesn't even have a fact checking department, here's The Atlantic's official fact checking of the original Newsweek article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
Anonymous
08/20/2012 20:40
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?
We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?
Hope you don't ever need hormonal birth control, fertility treatments or have a miscarriage. Several of the personhood bills introduced in state legislatures prohibit fertility treatments, hormonal birth control and can criminalize miscarriage. Looking forward to facing police questioning if you suffered a miscarriage? Need an abortion to save your life? Too bad - you'll have to leave your little kids without a mother. On October 13th of last year the House passed H.R. 398 that would allows doctors and hospitals to exercise their conscience by letting pregnant women with emergency medical conditions die. Paul Ryan fully supports these personhood and Mitt Romney has said that he would too.
Anonymous
08/20/2012 20:27
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?
Interesting so despite never having to deal with these issues regularly or even ever, those issues should trump the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No matter how good or bad the economy that does not matter if you are a SLAVE. And that is what patriarchy makes women when it DICKtates the terms and conditions underwhich we can own and operaste a uterus.
I have daughters and I'll fight like hell to make sure their rights are not eroded by this off-the-rails Republican party.
I somehow doubt you have ever had to blast an armed intruder in your home, but that doesn't stop you from insisting that you HAVE to have an automatic weapon, does it?
And finally, by all means, please SHOW US HOW these issues do NOT trump jobs and the economy by getting your damn party to focus on JOBS AND THE ECONOMY instead of vaginas and magical rape secretions. Seriously.
Anonymous
08/20/2012 20:02
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Jeff--show me any 5 page article and I'll fine the "gotcha" error. Please, you're smarter than that--there were some very good points in the story.
As a fiscally-conservative Dem I dunno for whom I'm voting. Our party fell in love with a good looking smart and inspirational rookie. Silly then and silly now.
While I loathe 1 issue voters (s/o to you, vagina lady) on balance I figure if we're broke there's no money for anything else on anyone's agenda, so I tilt to there. I also figure both sides play to the wingnuts in each party (plenty of them around here) and look for who, behind closed doors, will cut a deal and get some movement..and play some hardball to do so.
Reading this board helps. It's like taking the NEA endorsement flyer into the voting booth and voting down the line--the other way.
Anonymous, since we are on a first name basis and all, you can show me any 5 page article you want. However, if you introduce that by saying "He's correct on all points, don't complain when I point out a major error. Obviously, this author was not correct on all points. Moreover, far from that being a "gotcha", this is a pretty major issue. The author was dishonest and displayed an amazing lack of integrity. If he did that relative to Obamacare, what else was he similarly wrong about?
Also, both sides don't play to the fringes of their parties. Obama's spokesman once said progressives needed to be drug tested. Rahm said we were "fucking retards". Obama never even allowed single-payer supporters a seat at the table of his famous healthcare summit. When MoveOn.org held a contest an an unknown individual submitted an entry that compared Bush to Hitler, the Congress passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. This is not playing to the left. This is treating them with disdain. On the Republican side, the lunatics set the agenda. Sure, Akin is getting a lot of condemnation for his remarks about "legitimate rape". But, the Republican's VP choice co-sponsored a bill with Akin attempting to redefine rape as "forcible rape". Coincidentally, Akin said today that he meant to say "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape". Where is the criticism of Ryan from Republicans for co-sponsoring such a bill? Do any Republicans think Ryan needs to be drug tested?
hmm..either I have an instantly-recognizable writing style or you're using admin privileges to identify my messages. I hope the former.
in order:
"introduce that by saying "He's correct on all points," please re-read my post. I did not say that. You should know, by now, that I'm able to see both sides of an argument, albeit I weight them differently. apology accepted!
"amazing lack of integrity...dishonest" my, you DO live in a binary world. I simply think he made some good points..no more no less.
on dems and hc---I largely agree and think our current situation is not a function of bad policy work but of horrible politics and since politics is a full-contact sport and you know the other side tackles hard and plays dirty in the huddle, I sure wish dems had done a better job here. single pay? no point in hand wringing here..was it napoleon who said something like "I need to see where my troops are going so I can lead them?"
re: akin and some ryan co-sponsored bill--c'mon you know better. I don't know akin, whether he's a newbie tea party 1 termer, but with 535 of these characters in town you get some putz's..both sides. and we can find embarrassing co-sponsorships a'plenty all around.
maybe our chief difference is that my favorite political writer was Mencken. i think both sides are 40% hot air, 40% panderers hustling for the next vote, and maybe 20% (generously) statesmen and leaders looking ahead and not at polls.
oh..and I do think that you should be posting in this forum anonymously, not as administrator. that's a separate thread and I'm surely not the first to so propose but you've decided otherwise. your site. your prerogative.
Anonymous
08/20/2012 17:11
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?
We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?
I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?
Interesting so despite never having to deal with these issues regularly or even ever, those issues should trump the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy?
Interesting, so I guess civil liberties are a luxury for when times are good. Let me know when you will be returning your guns.
Do tax dollars get allocated directly or indirectly to supply every citizen with a gun?
I was unaware that I could avoid being wanded if I paid for my own medical care.
Anonymous
08/20/2012 17:01
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Are my constitutional rights any more or less because of it?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?
We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?
I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?
Interesting so despite never having to deal with these issues regularly or even ever, those issues should trump the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy?
Interesting, so I guess civil liberties are a luxury for when times are good. Let me know when you will be returning your guns.
Do tax dollars get allocated directly or indirectly to supply every citizen with a gun?
jsteele
08/20/2012 16:52
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:Jeff--show me any 5 page article and I'll fine the "gotcha" error. Please, you're smarter than that--there were some very good points in the story.
As a fiscally-conservative Dem I dunno for whom I'm voting. Our party fell in love with a good looking smart and inspirational rookie. Silly then and silly now.
While I loathe 1 issue voters (s/o to you, vagina lady) on balance I figure if we're broke there's no money for anything else on anyone's agenda, so I tilt to there. I also figure both sides play to the wingnuts in each party (plenty of them around here) and look for who, behind closed doors, will cut a deal and get some movement..and play some hardball to do so.
Reading this board helps. It's like taking the NEA endorsement flyer into the voting booth and voting down the line--the other way.
Anonymous, since we are on a first name basis and all, you can show me any 5 page article you want. However, if you introduce that by saying "He's correct on all points, don't complain when I point out a major error. Obviously, this author was not correct on all points. Moreover, far from that being a "gotcha", this is a pretty major issue. The author was dishonest and displayed an amazing lack of integrity. If he did that relative to Obamacare, what else was he similarly wrong about?
Also, both sides don't play to the fringes of their parties. Obama's spokesman once said progressives needed to be drug tested. Rahm said we were "fucking retards". Obama never even allowed single-payer supporters a seat at the table of his famous healthcare summit. When MoveOn.org held a contest an an unknown individual submitted an entry that compared Bush to Hitler, the Congress passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. This is not playing to the left. This is treating them with disdain. On the Republican side, the lunatics set the agenda. Sure, Akin is getting a lot of condemnation for his remarks about "legitimate rape". But, the Republican's VP choice co-sponsored a bill with Akin attempting to redefine rape as "forcible rape". Coincidentally, Akin said today that he meant to say "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape". Where is the criticism of Ryan from Republicans for co-sponsoring such a bill? Do any Republicans think Ryan needs to be drug tested?
Anonymous
08/20/2012 16:11
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
He's correct on all points. Liberals chose the wrong guy. He's not a leader he's a campaigner who sounds great but gets nothing done. Bill Clinton had stones to do hard work, not just campaign and be a celebrity.
Sarah is that you?!
Anonymous
08/20/2012 16:09
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?
We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?
I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?
Interesting so despite never having to deal with these issues regularly or even ever, those issues should trump the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy?
Interesting, so I guess civil liberties are a luxury for when times are good. Let me know when you will be returning your guns.
Do tax dollars get allocated directly or indirectly to supply every citizen with a gun?
Anonymous
08/20/2012 15:56
Subject: Newsweek Cover: Hit the road Barack. Why we need a new president
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?
We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?
I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?
Interesting so despite never having to deal with these issues regularly or even ever, those issues should trump the problems people deal with everyday like jobs and the economy?
Interesting, so I guess civil liberties are a luxury for when times are good. Let me know when you will be returning your guns.