[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I am the Kwisatz Haderach! There are no winners here, only losers.

Except for your old smelly rainbow colored ass.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

How about getting this thread back on topic with some good ol' fashioned Obama-bashing?

[Osedax]

As I said from the very beginning, you're either trying to play word games or you don't understand the English language. All of those words you put together mean something. You can't just ignore the meaning of those words by saying "logic" and have that meaning go away.

What you said was clear and to the point. What you've done since then is muddle, obfuscate and evade. It so bad that you can't and won't even talk about the words you used because to do so, to become engaged about what you actually said, would reaffirm what I've said, and you know that as well as I do. I've made that as clear as day.

So instead you hide behind false claims and words you clearly don't even understand, bring up irrelevant topics and play word games. I'm not surprised. I've seen trolling before and you're doing a decent job, not a great job, but decent. You've at least been effective at avoiding any actual discussion about what you said, which is your intent.

So when you're ready to talk about what you actually said instead of pretending you have a clue what you're talking about with "premise" etc, because you clearly don't, then we'll have a discussion.

But I know that day will never come because you absolutely refuse to admit that you're wrong even though you so clearly are.

[Hawkeye_a]

I have reserved my opinion on Obama's job performance until i had sufficient time and information to formulate an opinion. It has been just over a year since he took the helm.

My Opinion:
He is not doing a good job.

My Reasons:
Nothing is being "done"!!!! A lot of grandiose speeches written by speech writers is great to foster hope, but nothing is actually being done. it's all just seems like hot air. It seems like he spends more time talking, debating, and with PR than he does with making executive decisions and implementing them.

On domestic issues, what's changes ? (i really dont know as i'm not there right now)

His international policy is a joke. i've watched for the past 12+ months as he and his administration have flip-flopped from one stand to the other when it suited their public image. Iran and the "outstretched hand" bs. then with the Israelis and Palestinians, supporting Israel when he needs the votes from the Jewish community and then siding with the Palestinians etc,etc.... these are all symptoms of a person who lacks experience in these matters. And while he might be a great guy, i ultimately think he was the wrong choice for the job that needs to be done.

Prior to Obama, and specifically during the Bush Jr. years, i considered myself more of a 'liberal', and felt that Gore and Kerry would have been better choices. This time around, i felt that neither Obama nor Hillary were good choices, and that McCain (or even Collin Powell) would have been a better leader, just because of his extensive experience. it had nothing to do republican vs democrat in picking those sides when i did.

I admit i was shocked at the fact that he was elected, not because he was african-american, but because of his lack of experience. i was optimistic, and gave him the benefit of the doubt. but, thus far he has not performed well, imho.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Iraq war? Medicare Part D? Where's the hate on those?

Iraq war? Bipartisan effort from day one and a follow-up on Clinton's regime change doctrine. The only effective policy we've had in Iraq since the bipartisan decision to invade with shock and awe was the surge, opposed by the most noteworthy of Dems in office today.

Medicare Part D? Opposed by a majority of Democrats when proposed by Republicans, but with a Democratic super majority in office, no aspects of Medicare Part D were repealed opting instead for an add-in prescription drug benefit. You shouldn't make people more dependent on a program you dislike.

You're right, where's the hate?

I don't know either. But I see the behaviors of a duck.

Perhaps those constantly on the look-out for ducks will see nothing, but ducks because they can't hear anything over the quacking in their own heads.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Iraq war? Bipartisan effort from day one and a follow-up on Clinton's regime change doctrine. The only effective policy we've had in Iraq since the bipartisan decision to invade with shock and awe was the surge, opposed by the most noteworthy of Dems in office today.

Medicare Part D? Opposed by a majority of Democrats when proposed by Republicans, but with a Democratic super majority in office, no aspects of Medicare Part D were repealed opting instead for an add-in prescription drug benefit. You shouldn't make people more dependent on a program you dislike.

You're right, where's the hate?

Government spending is government spending, no matter which party 'owned' it. I just wonder why if one were to hate on one deficit-inducing spend, why not others, regardless of origin? Seems rather inconsistent and hypocritical to me.

But hey, enjoy your cruise on the SS Partisan failboat.

Perhaps those constantly on the look-out for ducks will see nothing, but ducks because they can't hear anything over the quacking in their own heads.

Perhaps. But I see plenty of other creatures. THIS one is not mooing like a cow, it's quacking like a duck.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Government spending is government spending, no matter which party 'owned' it.

Right, so why is the immediate response to another's distaste for spending; "but ______________"? Let's make sure we consistently spend too much? How do you know he's not complained about prior spending abuses?

The examples used in these "two wrongs make a right" arguments are far less contentious than the initiatives most are complaining about now anyway.

I just wonder why if one were to hate on one deficit-inducing spend, why not others, regardless of origin? Seems rather inconsistent and hypocritical to me.
But hey, enjoy your cruise on the SS Partisan failboat.

For one, he and most of the country supported Iraq and while Medicare Part D was another boondoggle that helped lose a lot of seats for the spendy (R)s, it seems our leadership has learned absolutely zero from it. I'll know we're seeing real progress when the most partisan of you are done looking backwards.

Can a guy ever complain or does it have to always come from people you agree with?

Perhaps. But I see plenty of other creatures. THIS one is not mooing like a cow, it's quacking like a duck.

What sound does the ACLU make?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, so why is the immediate response to another's distaste for spending; "but ______________"? Let's make sure we consistently spend too much? How do you know he's not complained about prior spending abuses?

I don't. I don't even know he's complaining about current spending abuses. That was another poster's assumption. I just pointed out why it would be reasonable for that NOT to be one's first assumption.

The examples used in these "two wrongs make a right" arguments are far less contentious than the initiatives most are complaining about now anyway.

Who said any wrong makes a right? What makes you think I believe any of this overspending is OK? I'm just observing different responses to similar events.

For one, he and most of the country supported Iraq and while Medicare Part D was another boondoggle that helped lose a lot of seats for the spendy (R)s, it seems our leadership has learned absolutely zero from it. I'll know we're seeing real progress when the most partisan of you are done looking backwards.

So - let me get this straight. Your arguments are as follows:

For the deficit spending that resulted from the Iraq war, your conclusion is that it's a continuation of Clinton's policy, so it must be the Dems' fault. Even though it was a spending initiative that was presented by the administration based on fabricated information, because the cost/benefit of incurring the deficit probably wouldn't have made sense based on the real information at hand.

For Medicare Part D, well, it was enacted by the Pubbies, but the Dems didn't repeal it when they gained power, so it's the Dems' fault.

Um, yeah, OK, whatever. Seems to me you're far more interested in laying blame on the 'other team' than you are in addressing real issues. If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick with the rhetoric excluding myself from 'the most partisan of you'.

Can a guy ever complain or does it have to always come from people you agree with?

Sure. It works best when he's clear on what he's complaining about, and what he'd like to see to make it all better.

What sound does the ACLU make?

Seems like a legit question to me. I would infer from that picture that the ACLU doesn't like the fact that Obama's policies are too similar to Bush's for their liking. Moo. Nice try though.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can a guy ever complain or does it have to always come from people you agree with?

Complaining is allowed. Absolutely.

It's just that if you don't complain consistently about the same things you run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy.


In other words, complaining about massive deficit spending by any of our recent Presidents is consistent. Complaining about massive deficit spending by President Obama and Clinton, while not making similar complaints about massive deficit spending by President Bush and Reagan, makes you a hypocrite.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In other words, complaining about massive deficit spending by any of our recent Presidents is consistent. Complaining about massive deficit spending by President Obama and Clinton, while not making similar complaints about massive deficit spending by President Bush and Reagan, makes you a hypocrite.

...and vicey versy

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

...and vicey versy

Correct. Anyone complaining about massive deficit-spending by President Bush or Reagan and not complaining about massive deficit-spending by President Obama or Clinton is a hypocrite as well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Who said any wrong makes a right? What makes you think I believe any of this overspending is OK? I'm just observing different responses to similar events.

You said; "but what about Iraq and Medicare Part D"? as if two wrongs make a right. No one is talking about Iraq or Medicare Part D. What about 'em other than a shameless redirect?

For the deficit spending that resulted from the Iraq war, your conclusion is that it's a continuation of Clinton's policy, so it must be the Dems' fault.

No. I claimed the Iraq war was a bipartisan effort from day one and cited Clinton's expressed regime change doctrine as a fact to bolster my claim.

Even though it was a spending initiative that was presented by the administration based on fabricated information, because the cost/benefit of incurring the deficit probably wouldn't have made sense based on the real information at hand.

Yes, even though the decision had been based on information that had been available to all since at least the early 90's; information that led to 12 years of harsh economic sanctions and no less than 13 UN Resolutions against Iraq. Hypocrites throw around words like "fabricated information" to bolster the Bush lied, people died BS without considering when and how the information was made available and who all supported it. *hint: it's a who's who of the most noteworthy of both Dems and Reps.

For Medicare Part D, well, it was enacted by the Pubbies, but the Dems didn't repeal it when they gained power, so it's the Dems' fault.

What part of "another boondoggle that helped lose a lot of seats for the spendy (R)s" didn't you get?

My point is the current Administration, today's leadership, new policy, today's spending, current legislation; the fact that we've learned absolutely nothing from the prior Administration. You, like many who repeatedly look to yesteryear for atrocities committed by the "other guys", are doing nothing more than trying to defend the indefensible by framing the issue as "two wrongs make a right". Why? Well, I guess because you feel you have to.

Um, yeah, OK, whatever. Seems to me you're far more interested in laying blame on the 'other team' than you are in addressing real issues. If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick with the rhetoric excluding myself from 'the most partisan of you'.

If I were you, I wouldn't start an argument with "Um, yeah, OK, whatever." The problem here is that we're talking about complaints of the current Administration as "bashing" the President. Your point is that complaints about current spending measures are unfair because of abusive spending in the past and the related silence. This doesn't make any sense. For one, Conservatives were the most vocally opposed to Bush's spending spree and anyone associated with him promptly lost their seats. The Presidential campaign was about trying to pin Bush on the other guy as much as possible. I had been complaining since "Bush Bucks", but that's not what we're talking about now. The ones who want to focus this much on the prior Administration too often do so to deflect from the incredible abuses happening right now, today.

Who's allowed to complain in your view and when?

Seems like a legit question to me. I would infer from that picture that the ACLU doesn't like the fact that Obama's policies are too similar to Bush's for their liking. Moo. Nice try though.

It's an attack, it's bashing. You'll give it a pass of course because it is in line with your partisan sensitivities, but the fact of the matter is that morphing Obama's face into Bush's was not necessary. We all know the code words and references for Uncle Tom, etc... and the ACLU must be seizing on these racist sentiments in order to make a point. Right?

[stupendousman]

I just glanced through this thread, so maybe I missed something.....

Are there people here who aren't aware that one of the reasons why Bush was extremely unpopular was his inability to control spending? Sure, the left may have hated him for brining democracy to the middle east, but people in his own party scoffed at him because he didn't seem to have much fiscal control.

I think one of the reasons Reagan gets a pass though is because at the time, he was spending on stuff that was an actual investment in something that only the Government can provide. Reagan's winning of the Cold War allowed us to have that "peace dividend" in the 90's that created somewhat balanced budgets. All the spending these days will get us is more long-term spending.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'm just observing different responses to similar events.

You're not observing any such thing, at least not by the person you're calling racist.

Do you have any clue how he responded to Bush spending? Of course you don't - you're just making a huge, baseless assumption and now you're calling it an "observation"? No, no and no.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Complaining is allowed. Absolutely.

It's just that if you don't complain consistently about the same things you run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy.

How do you know the person that wrote this letter hasn't been consistant?

You don't. You have no idea. You're just making assumptions.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You said; "but what about Iraq and Medicare Part D"? as if two wrongs make a right. No one is talking about Iraq or Medicare Part D. What about 'em other than a shameless redirect?

Redirect? You obviously pay little attention to context. I was answering a direct question: 'When is the last time a President tried to so massively increase national spending with something like the Health Care bill?'

No. I claimed the Iraq war was a bipartisan effort from day one and cited Clinton's expressed regime change doctrine as a fact to bolster my claim.

And that makes it OK to spend money we don't have? See - I'm not the one trying to justify excessive spending - it's you by saying 'But the Dems did it too!'

Yes, even though the decision had been based on information that had been available to all since at least the early 90's; information that led to 12 years of harsh economic sanctions and no less than 13 UN Resolutions against Iraq. Hypocrites throw around words like "fabricated information" to bolster the Bush lied, people died BS without considering when and how the information was made available and who all supported it. *hint: it's a who's who of the most noteworthy of both Dems and Reps.

Bottom line - the facts were presented as Iraq had a stockpile of WMD's that were a threat to the US. Those most decidedly did not exist, and we spent $1T+ we didn't have, well, for what? I hope future generations will see it as 'worth it'.

What part of "another boondoggle that helped lose a lot of seats for the spendy (R)s" didn't you get?

My point is the current Administration, today's leadership, new policy, today's spending, current legislation; the fact that we've learned absolutely nothing from the prior Administration. You, like many who repeatedly look to yesteryear for atrocities committed by the "other guys", are doing nothing more than trying to defend the indefensible by framing the issue as "two wrongs make a right". Why? Well, I guess because you feel you have to.

Again - who said any wrong makes a right? Where, precisely, in my argument did I attempt to justify/defend any deficit spending? Why do you keep arguing against a claim I didn't make? What's with driving need to repeatedly make (incorrect) assumptions about my position?

Yes - I do look to yesteryear. I think we can learn from past behaviors, and the results of those behaviors, so that we repeat the things that bring desirable results, and change the things that don't. I'm surprised you'd think that's unreasonable. Except that I'm not the one bashing the 'other team' - you are. Did I try to pin any of Obama's deficit spending wishes on the Pubbies? I don't think so. All I see in your posts is trying to pin Bush's deficit spending on the Dems. Who's trying to defend the indefensible by trying to pin blame on the 'other guys'? *hint: it's you.

If I were you, I wouldn't start an argument with "Um, yeah, OK, whatever."

I would if presented with an argument that's completely asinine and irrelevant.

The problem here is that we're talking about complaints of the current Administration as "bashing" the President. Your point is that complaints about current spending measures are unfair because of abusive spending in the past and the related silence. This doesn't make any sense. For one, Conservatives were the most vocally opposed to Bush's spending spree and anyone associated with him promptly lost their seats. The Presidential campaign was about trying to pin Bush on the other guy as much as possible. I had been complaining since "Bush Bucks", but that's not what we're talking about now. The ones who want to focus this much on the prior Administration too often do so to deflect from the incredible abuses happening right now, today.

I have no problem with complaints about current spending measures. However, that's not what's going on here. That is one person's assumption about the intent of a mass e-mail.

On spending - like the ACLU's question, I think it's a fair question to ask. However, I also think it's fair to ask the question - the spending has been going on for 8 years - where has everybody been? Where were the 'Tea Parties'? What suddenly changed?

Who's allowed to complain in your view and when?

Complain all you like. But don't expect instant credibility if your motivations seem suspect.

It's an attack, it's bashing. You'll give it a pass of course because it is in line with your partisan sensitivities, but the fact of the matter is that morphing Obama's face into Bush's was not necessary. We all know the code words and references for Uncle Tom, etc... and the ACLU must be seizing on these racist sentiments in order to make a point. Right?

Hmmm...what do these two men have in common? Maybe they were the two most recent Presidents of the United States? I give it a pass because it is making a clear point about not liking Obama's policies? Bashing? Perhaps. But at least it's making a specific complaint.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You're not observing any such thing, at least not by the person you're calling racist.

Do you have any clue how he responded to Bush spending? Of course you don't - you're just making a huge, baseless assumption and now you're calling it an "observation"? No, no and no.

So are you. At least I recognize that I am, and have all along. But my assumption isn't about spending - let's remember that's your assumption about the author's motivation, not mine. Quack, Quack, and Quack.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

How do you know the person that wrote this letter hasn't been consistant?

You don't. You have no idea. You're just making assumptions.

How do you know that 1) the motivation of the person that wrote this letter is excessive spending, and 2) that even if it is, that he has been consistent?

You don't. You have no idea. You're just making assumptions.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So are you. At least I recognize that I am, and have all along. But my assumption isn't about spending - let's remember that's your assumption about the author's motivation, not mine. Quack, Quack, and Quack.

What the hell are you talking about?

I've never made any assumptions about the author's motivation, much less his stance on spending.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

How do you know that 1) the motivation of the person that wrote this letter is excessive spending, and 2) that even if it is, that he has been consistent?

You don't. You have no idea. You're just making assumptions.

Fail. I said I don't know and based on that I can not and have not passed judgment. I have repeatedly said he could be racist, I don't know.

You are the one that thinks the author is racist, a "duck", without having all the information.

You are the one that is making huge assumptions about the author with no facts to support your belief, not me. I have multiple times said that I do not know if he is racist or not.

It's good to see you finally admit how foolish you've been. But it's rather asinine that you're trying to claim I've done the same thing when I so clearly have not.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

What the hell are you talking about?

I've never made any assumptions about the author's motivation, much less his stance on spending.

EPIC FAIL! You said this:

Originally Posted by Osedax 

When is the last time a President tried to so massively increase national spending with something like the Health Care bill? The New Deal? That was a pretty long time ago...

In my opinion, big spending brings big animosity.

Pretty clear to me...

Fail. I said I don't know and based on that I can not and have not passed judgment. I have repeatedly said he could be racist, I don't know.

You are the one that thinks the author is racist, a "duck", without having all the information.

You are the one that is making huge assumptions about the author with no facts to support your belief, not me. I have multiple times said that I do not know if he is racist or not.

It's good to see you finally admit how foolish you've been. But it's rather asinine that you're trying to claim I've done the same thing when I so clearly have not.

CreepDogg: 'I assume there's a racial motivation to this letter - because I see X in the text that leads me to that assumption. I could be wrong, but IMO it's the most plausible.'
Osedax: 'You're making assumptions!'

Classic!

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

EPIC FAIL! You said this:

When is the last time a President tried to so massively increase national spending with something like the Health Care bill? The New Deal? That was a pretty long time ago...

In my opinion, big spending brings big animosity

WOW really? Are you joking?

That quote was in response to a staetment you made, not an assumption of the author's motivation.

In fact, if you read the very next statement from me in the same post, I said:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3942724

"I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way. As OAW pointed out, there is context, but in the letter itself, there is nothing that suggests racism directly and even indirect implication is a stretch."

What part of "I am not jumping to any conclusions" confused you?!?

What part of "I am not making a decision either way" do you not understand?!

Seriously, you want to talk about EPIC FAIL? You couldn't even be bothered to read the entire post before you edited one tiny section out of it's context then flew off the cuff. THAT is EPIC and THAT is FAIL.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

WOW really? Are you joking?

That quote was in response to a staetment you made, not an assumption of the author's motivation.

In fact, if you read the very next statement from me in the same post, I said:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3942724

"I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way. As OAW pointed out, there is context, but in the letter itself, there is nothing that suggests racism directly and even indirect implication is a stretch."

What part of "I am not jumping to any conclusions" confused you?!?

What part of "I am not making a decision either way" do you not understand?!

Seriously, you want to talk about EPIC FAIL? You couldn't even be bothered to read the entire post before you edited one tiny section out of it's context then flew off the cuff. THAT is EPIC and THAT is FAIL.

Dude, get back on your meds. Seriously. Your quote, which was a response to a statement I made, was conjecture on the motivation of the author. That line of conversation started with your statement. The topic of the author not being happy about spending did not appear before that. So the thought came from somewhere - i.e. you. No joke!

If you want to retract that and revert to 'I'm not making any assumptions', by all means, feel free!

I already stated, numerous times, I am making assumptions. Deal with it. They're not admissible in a court of law (nor should they be), but they are admissible in the court of public opinion. Which is the only court that will see this.

Several times now, you've acknowledged that I may be right, and I've acknowledged that I may be wrong. So, what is it exactly that you're prattling on about?

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Dude, get back on your meds. Seriously. Your quote, which was a response to a statement I made, was conjecture on the motivation of the author.

Are you retarded? The very next statement... THE VERY NEXT STATEMENT I said:

I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way.

Are you to stupid to understand what that means? Seriously?

Several times now, you've acknowledged that I may be right, and I've acknowledged that I may be wrong. So, what is it exactly that you're prattling on about?

You're right, you may be right. But you may be wrong. You have no damn idea if you're right or wrong because your entire argument is based on bad assumptions.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Are you retarded? The very next statement... THE VERY NEXT STATEMENT I said:

I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way.

Are you to stupid to understand what that means? Seriously?

So if I'm to take that post in it's entirety, I'd paraphrase it as:

'I think the author is unhappy with Obama's excessive spending, as many people are (i.e. not racist). But I don't know if the intent was racist or not, and I'm not jumping to any conclusions.'

So - you can understand my confusion, as you make two assertions that are mutually exclusive. Which is it? I'd prefer you pick one and pull me out of the dark. Thanks!

You're right, you may be right. But you may be wrong. You have no damn idea if you're right or wrong because your entire argument is based on bad assumptions.

I think my assumptions are pretty good. Certainly better than anything you've offered.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

How about getting this thread back on topic with some good ol' fashioned Obama-bashing?

The original topic was about incoherent Obama bashing, so somebody say something about Obama being a secret crypto non Hawaiian Muslim or something...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Redirect? You obviously pay little attention to context. I was answering a direct question: 'When is the last time a President tried to so massively increase national spending with something like the Health Care bill?'

You claimed the rhetoric has been amped up. He seems to be claiming that the sentiment is amped up in proportion to the disagreeable behaviors. You brought up two issues that occurred throughout Bush's 8 years in office; one that enjoyed the overwhelming majority of support not only across both aisles of Congress, but of the entire country and the other paling in comparison monetarily.

And that makes it OK to spend money we don't have? See - I'm not the one trying to justify excessive spending - it's you by saying 'But the Dems did it too!'

I'm not justifying excessive spending, and I've not once implied "Dems did it too" to anyone paying attention. I'm indicating why your examples are fallacious and accomplish little more than; "but Bush...". There have been issues in American history that the majority have felt worthy of expenditure. This President's policies however are not among them.

Bottom line - the facts were presented as Iraq had a stockpile of WMD's that were a threat to the US. Those most decidedly did not exist, and we spent $1T+ we didn't have, well, for what? I hope future generations will see it as 'worth it'.

Another partisan talking point. Bush never once claimed that WMDs were the sole reason to invade. This was how the opposition framed the effort because they smelled blood politically. I recall concerns over the material support of terrorists as cited by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the sale of weapons programs (nothing to do with actual WMDs) among other geopolitical concerns in the region.

In the context of hypocrisy of course none of this matters... Where's OBL? Wasn't that a reason given for increasing engagement in Afghanistan? Should I claim this was the only reason, then bash Obama for it? No. Of course not, only a partisan hypocrite would hold such lopsided standards.

...pinning words on me...

The "other team".

I have no problem with complaints about current spending measures. However, that's not what's going on here. That is one person's assumption about the intent of a mass e-mail.

What do you suppose the intent was? I mean, you're tying to imply hypocrisy and when I asked you how you knew there weren't complaints from the same folks at the time, you didn't know and didn't seem to care.

On spending - like the ACLU's question, I think it's a fair question to ask.

It's fair to ask the question, it's unfair to morph pictures of him into Bush. This was unnecessary and very well could be an "Uncle Tom" reference.

However, I also think it's fair to ask the question - the spending has been going on for 8 years - where has everybody been? Where were the 'Tea Parties'? What suddenly changed?

Where have you been? Anyone having to do with the Bush Administration was promptly voted out of office giving way to a massive Democratic takeover in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.

Complain all you like. But don't expect instant credibility if your motivations seem suspect.

Meh. I'm more interested in the credibility of the arbiter in this case.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You claimed the rhetoric has been amped up. He seems to be claiming that the sentiment is amped up in proportion to the disagreeable behaviors. You brought up two issues that occurred throughout Bush's 8 years in office; one that enjoyed the overwhelming majority of support not only across both aisles of Congress, but of the entire country and the other paling in comparison monetarily.

Um, last I checked, the spending for the health care bill is estimated to be about $1T over a decade. Sound familiar? What 'pales' in comparison to what?

I'm not justifying excessive spending, and I've not once implied "Dems did it too" to anyone paying attention. I'm indicating why your examples are fallacious and accomplish little more than; "but Bush...". There have been issues in American history that the majority have felt worthy of expenditure. This President's policies however are not among them.

My examples are examples of government spending, particularly of the variety that is not 'paid for' with government revenue. And yes, they happened under a different administration. So I'll ask it again - where was the hate if that's the 'justification'?

The 'majority' seeing things worthy of expenditure is irrelevant, as even in those cases, there have been significant minorities opposed. I could say the same thing about the President Obama's agenda, as polls early on showed that the majority favored health care reform. So, perhaps the majority feel that particular issue is worthy of expenditure, if not in its current form?

Another partisan talking point. Bush never once claimed that WMDs were the sole reason to invade. This was how the opposition framed the effort because they smelled blood politically. I recall concerns over the material support of terrorists as cited by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the sale of weapons programs (nothing to do with actual WMDs) among other geopolitical concerns in the region.

And I wonder, given that, if a majority of people would vote to incur a $1T+ debt over a decade to address those issues.

In the context of hypocrisy of course none of this matters... Where's OBL? Wasn't that a reason given for increasing engagement in Afghanistan? Should I claim this was the only reason, then bash Obama for it? No. Of course not, only a partisan hypocrite would hold such lopsided standards.

Have at it. Personally, I don't think we should be engaged there either if we can't pay for it.

'Pinning words on me.' The "other team".

What specific words did I pin on you? I infer from this that you think I misinterpreted your statements and/or your intent. What, specifically, did I misinterpret? In the absence of an answer, I'll assume you found your claims to be indefensible after all.

What do you suppose the intent was? I mean, you're tying to imply hypocrisy and when I asked you how you knew there weren't complaints from the same folks at the time, you didn't know and didn't seem to care.

I've already indicated my supposition that the intent was rooted in race, not hypocrisy. Which makes the rest of your claim baseless and irrelevant.

It's fair to ask the question, it's unfair to morph pictures of him into Bush. This was unnecessary and very well could be an "Uncle Tom" reference.

Hey, if that's what you want to read into it, knock yourself out. I read it as a '2 presidents whose policies are too much alike' reference. Though I find it interesting - nothing more, nothing less - that you see racial intent where I see none, and vice versa. I guess that just means we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

Where have you been? Anyone having to do with the Bush Administration was promptly voted out of office giving way to a massive Democratic takeover in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.

Um, who from the Bush Administration ran for office in 2008? And if you're talking about Republicans in general, last I checked, there are 41 in the Senate, and 178 in the House. Many, I would guess, re-elected by the same people complaining about their spending.

Meh. I'm more interested in the credibility of the arbiter in this case.

Right back at ya, buddy.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So if I'm to take that post in it's entirety, I'd paraphrase it as:

'I think the author is unhappy with Obama's excessive spending, as many people are (i.e. not racist). But I don't know if the intent was racist or not, and I'm not jumping to any conclusions.'

I never said "I think the author is unhappy with Obama's excessive spending". Those are your words, not mine.

I said big spending brings big animosity was "my opinion", not the authors reason for writing the letter.

And when you said this:
What's different about the assumptions I make and the conclusions I jump to compared to yours? Why do you jump to the conclusion that you do?

I made sure to clear up any doubt at all:
I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way.

So there is really no question that I did not make any assumptions regarding the authors intent. I expressed my opinion of what it might have been, but I made it very clear that it was just my opinion and nothing more. And just in case there was any doubt at all, I even made sure to clarify that explicitly by re-stating that I was not making any assumptions.

So again, that you're trying to tell me I made assumptions about the authors intent doesn't make sense.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I never said "I think the author is unhappy with Obama's excessive spending". Those are your words, not mine.

I said big spending brings big animosity was "my opinion", not the authors reason for writing the letter.

And when you said this:
What's different about the assumptions I make and the conclusions I jump to compared to yours? Why do you jump to the conclusion that you do?

I made sure to clear up any doubt at all:
I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way.

So there is really no question that I did not make any assumptions regarding the authors intent. I expressed my opinion of what it might have been, but I made it very clear that it was just my opinion and nothing more. And just in case there was any doubt at all, I even made sure to clarify that explicitly by re-stating that I was not making any assumptions.

So again, that you're trying to tell me I made assumptions about the authors intent doesn't make sense.

Your opinion is based on assumptions, as is mine.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Your opinion is based on assumptions, as is mine.

There is no question that my opinion was an assumption. However, my assumption was simply an expression of one possibility of what might have motivated him. But as I said, it's just an opinion and not anything I can determine his intent from. Which is why I specifically said I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way.

You on the other hand believe your assumptions to be true and based on your assumptions you came to the conclusion that he is racist.

So the difference between you and me is that while I recognize I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion, you think you can divine his intent based on nothing but your own baseless assumptions.

You're wrong.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

There is no question that my opinion was an assumption. However, my assumption was simply an expression of one possibility of what might have motivated him. But as I said, it's just an opinion and not anything I can determine his intent from. Which is why I specifically said I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way.

You on the other hand believe your assumptions to be true and based on your assumptions you came to the conclusion that he is racist.

So the difference between you and me is that while I recognize I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion, you think you can divine his intent based on nothing but your own baseless assumptions.

You're wrong.

How do you know? You're judging whether I'm right or wrong based on your own baseless assumptions.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

How do you know? You're judging whether I'm right or wrong based on your own baseless assumptions.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

You might be right that he is racist, we don't know.

And that is exactly why you are wrong for reaching a conclusion based on assumptions instead of information.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

You might be right that he is racist, we don't know.

And that is exactly why you are wrong for reaching a conclusion based on assumptions instead of information.

I might be right, so I'm wrong? Um, OK.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

Pointless......

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You might be right that he is racist, we don't know.

OPINION STATED AS FACT. "WE" don't know??? LOL

Originally Posted by Osedax 

And that is exactly why you are wrong for reaching a conclusion based on assumptions instead of information.

And exactly why you wasted everyone's time just getting around to stating that it WAS your opinion in the first place, and you came away not knowing anything for sure.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Um, last I checked, the spending for the health care bill is estimated to be about $1T over a decade. Sound familiar? What 'pales' in comparison to what?

Well, for starters we're not really comparing a decade of spending to a decade of spending. In the current proposal, we're talking about 10 years of offsets for 6 years' benefit vs a program operating now @ about $700 billion per CBO on a 12 year projection. Worse, per CBO the cost of the current plan will be approximately $200 billion per year by 2019 and increase by 8% every year thereafter. If you don't like something, you have an opportunity to repeal it. If you only add to the entitlement, your rhetoric is hollow. Besides, none of this sounds very familiar at all to be honest.

Perhaps the rhetoric is amped up because the charge of the campaign was pretty amped about "change". The fact of the matter is that none of this was supposed to sound familiar.

My examples are examples of government spending, particularly of the variety that is not 'paid for' with government revenue. And yes, they happened under a different administration. So I'll ask it again - where was the hate if that's the 'justification'?

... and I'll answer again; there was a ton of hate. Where have you been and where is the hate today?

The 'majority' seeing things worthy of expenditure is irrelevant, as even in those cases, there have been significant minorities opposed. I could say the same thing about the President Obama's agenda, as polls early on showed that the majority favored health care reform. So, perhaps the majority feel that particular issue is worthy of expenditure, if not in its current form?

Obama had been unable to garner support from a super-majority of his own party out of the gate on this thing because it was never intended to be healthcare reform, it was intended to be insurance company reform. People want healthcare reform, they don't wanna blow a trillion dollars on insurance company reform that does nothing for the skyrocketing costs of healthcare.

And I wonder, given that, if a majority of people would vote to incur a $1T+ debt over a decade to address those issues.

IMO, no. The notion of paying several years into something you don't see for another 4 years seems more budgetary gimmickry than reformative.

Have at it. Personally, I don't think we should be engaged there either if we can't pay for it.

This isn't hateful enough and you have to establish a longer track record of hating this in order to avoid being a hypocrite.

What specific words did I pin on you?

"Dems did it too". Never said it.

I've already indicated my supposition that the intent was rooted in race, not hypocrisy. Which makes the rest of your claim baseless and irrelevant.

What you've done is skip back and forth between what you think I'm saying and what you think the letter was saying instead of what is actually being said. I've indicated why your thinking is fallacious.

Hey, if that's what you want to read into it, knock yourself out. I read it as a '2 presidents whose policies are too much alike' reference. Though I find it interesting - nothing more, nothing less - that you see racial intent where I see none, and vice versa. I guess that just means we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

I'm showing you there's no end to what you can read into things. Perhaps we could at least see eye to eye on this point. Maybe not.

Um, who from the Bush Administration ran for office in 2008? And if you're talking about Republicans in general, last I checked, there are 41 in the Senate, and 178 in the House. Many, I would guess, re-elected by the same people complaining about their spending.

There were a great many Republicans vocally opposed to Bush's spending at the time as well. In witnessing the mass exodus of Republican seats in 2006, I'd guess the ones re-elected were able to effectively separate themselves from the spending abuses of the prior Administration.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well, for starters we're not really comparing a decade of spending to a decade of spending. In the current proposal, we're talking about 10 years of offsets for 6 years' benefit vs a program operating now @ about $700 billion per CBO on a 12 year projection. Worse, per CBO the cost of the current plan will be approximately $200 billion per year by 2019 and increase by 8% every year thereafter. If you don't like something, you have an opportunity to repeal it. If you only add to the entitlement, your rhetoric is hollow. Besides, none of this sounds very familiar at all to be honest.

Perhaps the rhetoric is amped up because the charge of the campaign was pretty amped about "change". The fact of the matter is that none of this was supposed to sound familiar.

Yes, we get it. You're upset that the current government is not repealing the spending. Great! However, not relevant to the question I was answering.

... and I'll answer again; there was a ton of hate. Where have you been and where is the hate today?

I was under the impression we were discussing an example of it.

IMO, no. The notion of paying several years into something you don't see for another 4 years seems more budgetary gimmickry than reformative.

I was talking about the Iraq War. Glad we agree.

This isn't hateful enough and you have to establish a longer track record of hating this in order to avoid being a hypocrite.

I'm more interested in addressing real problems than false outrage, thanks.

"Dems did it too". Never said it.

And I never said "...but Bush!" So we're even. Yet somehow we each managed to read those things into one another's statements...

What you've done is skip back and forth between what you think I'm saying and what you think the letter was saying instead of what is actually being said. I've indicated why your thinking is fallacious.

The topic is what the letter was saying. Actually. Focus is on that. As I've said before, there's nothing in the letter to indicate the author's intent, so we have to draw our own conclusions. I've drawn mine based on what I see as the most plausible motive for a personal attack. I made no mention of spending other than to answer a direct question. I've indicated how you're projecting fallacious thinking on me that is not, in fact, mine.

I'm showing you there's no end to what you can read into things. Perhaps we could at least see eye to eye on this point. Maybe not.

Can't 'show me' what I already know. I've made no bones about the fact that I'm reading into things. Perhaps others could be as forthcoming. Maybe not.

There were a great many Republicans vocally opposed to Bush's spending at the time as well. In witnessing the mass exodus of Republican seats in 2006, I'd guess the ones re-elected were able to effectively separate themselves from the spending abuses of the prior Administration.

I think that goes without saying, presuming spending was a primary voter issue. Either that, they ran unopposed or against some complete *********, or voters focused on something else. I guess it depends on what we read into it, no?

[PB2K]

[BadKosh]

I'm waiting to see how far away from the laws the Dems will go to get their 'healthcare' bill shoved through. I wonder if it will be legally done, or the expected unconstitutional methods.

[ebuddy]

I'm still trying to figure out what the cartoon above is supposed to represent.

As if anyone takes the Nobel Prize seriously enough that it would somehow be an albatross tied around Obama's neck. It was affirmation of the state of the Nobel award, not of the President. Besides, Obama doesn't need to run any race, he already holds the office he ran for.

[besson3c]

The nobel guy is giving Obama his medal before he ran the race, i.e. prematurely. It's not saying anything terribly profound that hasn't been said and agreed upon by many (including Obama himself), I think you're looking too carefully at it

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The nobel guy is giving Obama his medal before he ran the race, i.e. prematurely. It's not saying anything terribly profound that hasn't been said and agreed upon by many (including Obama himself), I think you're looking too carefully at it

Indeed. Definitely a play on how he was given the award before any major accomplishments in the area.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The nobel guy is giving Obama his medal before he ran the race, i.e. prematurely. It's not saying anything terribly profound that hasn't been said and agreed upon by many (including Obama himself), I think you're looking too carefully at it

Okay, well then I don't understand PB2K's usage of the cartoon in a thread about "Bashing Obama". It seemed to me the suggestion was that the expectations were set too high, setting Obama up for failure or something.

[besson3c]

Like this thread has any real focus to it...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Like this thread has any real focus to it...

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I might be right, so I'm wrong? Um, OK.

Is it really that complicated for you? There are two separate issues

Issue one:
He might be racist and you might be right that he is, we don't know.

Issue two:
You are simply assuming you are right despite not knowing if you are. You are wrong for doing that.

So yes, on one topic you might be right while on the other you are clearly wrong.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OPINION STATED AS FACT. "WE" don't know??? LOL

FAIL. I did not express an opinion stated as fact - we do not know if the author was racist.

And exactly why you wasted everyone's time just getting around to stating that it WAS your opinion in the first place, and you came away not knowing anything for sure.

When you are completely clueless as to what is even being discussed it's generally best to find out before you open your mouth and look stupid.

You look stupid and clueless.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You are simply assuming you are right despite not knowing if you are. You are wrong for doing that.

I'm 'wrong' for having an opinion (which, by the way, I've clearly stated as an opinion)? Wow, I guess everyone who ever had an opinion about anything is 'wrong'. Um, OK.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'm 'wrong' for having an opinion (which, by the way, I've clearly stated as an opinion)?

Pay attention.

I didn't say you were wrong for having an opinion.

I said: "You are simply assuming you are right despite not knowing if you are. You are wrong for doing that."

What you've done is like saying it's my opinion that the earth is flat, but it's just my opinion so it can't be wrong...

Wow, I guess everyone who ever had an opinion about anything is 'wrong'. Um, OK.

Stupid, irrelivent statement is stupid and irrelivent.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Pay attention.

I didn't say you were wrong for having an opinion.

I said: "You are simply assuming you are right despite not knowing if you are. You are wrong for doing that."

Yes, I'm forming a conclusion based on assumptions where no facts are available. And I've shown I'm well aware my assumptions are just that. Kind of like an...wait for it... OPINION! So yes, you are saying I'm wrong for having an opinion. OK then...

What you've done is like saying it's my opinion that the earth is flat, but it's just my opinion so it can't be wrong...

Except, we have evidence that the earth isn't flat. I don't think anyone here has stepped up to provide evidence in this case. You certainly have provided no rebuttal to my opinion other than to say 'You're wrong'. Direct, but not really very convincing. You might want to try to actually make a coherent argument if you want to show you actually have a point. kthxbye!

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yes, I'm forming a conclusion based on assumptions where no facts are available. And I've shown I'm well aware my assumptions are just that. Kind of like an...wait for it... OPINION! So yes, you are saying I'm wrong for having an opinion. OK then...

I am saying you are wrong for having the opinion you have because you have no facts to base it on - it's an unsupported guess yet you are calling the author a racist based on that guess. That is wrong.

Except, we have evidence that the earth isn't flat.

Likewise we don't have evidence the author is a racist and it's wrong to call him one when there is no evidence, even if it is "just your opinion".

You are calling the author racist based on NOTHING AT ALL. That is wrong.

Dance around it all you want, but it is wrong to call someone a racist when you have zero evidence to support your statement.

Play word games all you want, but it is wrong to call someone a racist when you have zero evidence to support your statement.

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. Not for "having an opinion" as you stupidly said, but for calling someone a racist when you have no evidence to support your idiotic opinion.

You certainly have provided no rebuttal to my opinion other than to say 'You're wrong'. Direct, but not really very convincing. You might want to try to actually make a coherent argument if you want to show you actually have a point. kthxbye!

Sure I have, multiple times. You've simply kept ignoring my rebuttals and going off on irrelivent tangents about how I supposed said nobody can have an opinion yadda yadda yadda.