Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How, exactly, has Obama failed?

How, exactly, has Obama failed? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 08:46 AM
 
With the FACTS being that Owe-Bama and the Democrats HAD a CLEAR MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES AND THE WHITE HOUSE. UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE??? Jeez....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 10:18 AM
 
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 04:33 PM
 
can anybody name

a small business[/B] and how it's being held down by what heavy regulations?

i'm just curious
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
can anybody name
a small business[/B] and how it's being held down by what heavy regulations?
i'm just curious
Here's a story of a cab company and a general idea of the state of the regulatory environment in the US.
Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.)

Otherwise, this misses the concern over regulations entirely ironknee. The complaint isn't this regulation or that, it is the administrative burden of the sheer volume and breadth of the regulations. For example; A firm with fewer than 20 employees spends about $10,585 per employee to comply with federal regulations, whereas a firm with over 500 employees spends only $7,755 per employee.
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 08:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Here's a story of a cab company and a general idea of the state of the regulatory environment in the US.
Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.)
Otherwise, this misses the concern over regulations entirely ironknee. The complaint isn't this regulation or that, it is the administrative burden of the sheer volume and breadth of the regulations. For example; A firm with fewer than 20 employees spends about $10,585 per employee to comply with federal regulations, whereas a firm with over 500 employees spends only $7,755 per employee.
like what?

what's in the sheer volume regulations? what are they paying for?

details please
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A firm with fewer than 20 employees spends about $10,585 per employee to comply with federal regulations, whereas a firm with over 500 employees spends only $7,755 per employee.
Isn't this economy of scale?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 09:29 AM
 
Yep.

Originally Posted by the study
The underlying force driving this differential cost burden is easy to understand.
Many of the costs associated with regulatory compliance are “fixed costs,” that is, a firm
with five employees incurs roughly the same expense as a firm with 500 employees. In
large firms, these fixed costs of compliance are spread over a large revenue, output, and
employee base, which results in lower costs per unit of output as firm size increases.
This is the familiar empirical phenomenon known as economies of scale, and its impact
is to provide a comparative cost advantage to large firms over small firms.
Just yet another reason why large businesses can out-compete small businesses in almost all facets of overhead....
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
like what?
what's in the sheer volume regulations? what are they paying for?
details please
Did you catch the one in the article I already provided?

Otherwise, there are thousands of pages of them contingent upon whichever industry you're in. FDA regs, ADA regs, CAAA, regs like Sarbanes–Oxley, or the 17 cited as particularly burdensome here for Lenders of student financial assistance. Who you can lend to, how, why, how much, when... Other industries -- what type of windows you must by, filters you must have, etc...
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Isn't this economy of scale?
Yes, it is. I was more taken aback by the costs themselves, but yes they're clearly more a burden on small businesses who comprise the overwhelming majority of employment in the US.
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Did you catch the one in the article I already provided?
Otherwise, there are thousands of pages of them contingent upon whichever industry you're in. FDA regs, ADA regs, CAAA, regs like Sarbanes–Oxley, or the 17 cited as particularly burdensome here for Lenders of student financial assistance. Who you can lend to, how, why, how much, when... Other industries -- what type of windows you must by, filters you must have, etc...
yes i did...but it didn't give any details

so let me get this straight, the FDA that protects the food supply is bad? you want food companies sell us products that may not be up to standard?

the ada? what are the dentists up to now?

i am not familiar with the caaa

Sarbanes–Oxley...i had to google it....dubaya signed it because of companies like enron
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2012, 08:07 PM
 
From our Comrades at the Peoples Cube

45/47
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2012, 03:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
yes i did...but it didn't give any details
so let me get this straight, the FDA that protects the food supply is bad? you want food companies sell us products that may not be up to standard?
the ada? what are the dentists up to now?
i am not familiar with the caaa
Sarbanes–Oxley...i had to google it....dubaya signed it because of companies like enron
Bush was horrible with his increased regulation. So much for hope and change eh? I didn't think you'd be able to handle the information and I was right. This is a complaint of business owners and those trying to start businesses, you wouldn't understand. Yes, the FDA, who does so much more than just guarantee safe food for you, is bad. I mean, if it has to be this black and white for you -- sure, they're horrible mean and nasty, ugly people.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2012, 03:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
From our Comrades at the Peoples Cube
Only half the truth.

Bain also invested in companies that went bankrupt.
But that's ok in my book, at least it was private money.

And not all of Obama's investments are bankrupt. Yet. But most will be as some point, because Obama has a canny ability to pick losers.

-t
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2012, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Bush was horrible with his increased regulation. So much for hope and change eh? I didn't think you'd be able to handle the information and I was right. This is a complaint of business owners and those trying to start businesses, you wouldn't understand. Yes, the FDA, who does so much more than just guarantee safe food for you, is bad. I mean, if it has to be this black and white for you -- sure, they're horrible mean and nasty, ugly people.
well sunshine, i would have you know i've had my own business since 1990

tell me then what does the fda do besides keeping our food supply safe?

i just want 1 example of how the fda the ada burdens small business owners?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2012, 03:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
well sunshine, i would have you know i've had my own business since 1990
tell me then what does the fda do besides keeping our food supply safe?
i just want 1 example of how the fda the ada burdens small business owners?
Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.

5689/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

Per CKE Restaurants CEO; Andy Puzder -- In fact, we would have more money to invest in job-creating activities instead of regulation compliance activities. We have got – we’ve got the Polygraph Protection Act, the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act. We’ve got an 11-page single-spaced list of regulations that you have to comply with to operate and open a simple quick-service restaurant chain, 57 categories of regulations, 11 pages long.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2012, 04:19 AM
 
Wow, really? Nutrition listing requirements? That's, like.....the greatest thing, ever.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2012, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.
5689/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Per CKE Restaurants CEO; Andy Puzder -- In fact, we would have more money to invest in job-creating activities instead of regulation compliance activities. We have got – we’ve got the Polygraph Protection Act, the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act. We’ve got an 11-page single-spaced list of regulations that you have to comply with to operate and open a simple quick-service restaurant chain, 57 categories of regulations, 11 pages long.
really?

Btw big boy, how many businesses have you started?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2012, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
really?
Btw big boy, how many businesses have you started?
Mmmbbblaaahhhuaaapffftppfff!!
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2012, 06:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Wow, really? Nutrition listing requirements? That's, like.....the greatest thing, ever.
Yup really and the collective has done nothing, but get fatter since. Mind you, not because of the nutrition information, but in spite of it which means -- it doesn't matter.
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Mmmbbblaaahhhuaaapffftppfff!!
i thought so
     
Mrjinglesusa  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.
5689/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Per CKE Restaurants CEO; Andy Puzder -- In fact, we would have more money to invest in job-creating activities instead of regulation compliance activities. We have got – we’ve got the Polygraph Protection Act, the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act. We’ve got an 11-page single-spaced list of regulations that you have to comply with to operate and open a simple quick-service restaurant chain, 57 categories of regulations, 11 pages long.
I don't see what the problem is.

Without regulation, businesses would be putting God knows what in their products and calling it "food". I have a RIGHT to know how many calories, fat, etc. are in the food restaurants are selling me so I can make an informed decision on what I purchase to consume.

Without the government requiring such information on food products, do you really think restaurants would volunteer this information?

Businesses can whine and complain all they want but government regulations are for the protection of consumers.

And trust me, businesses would NOT use this money to invest in job-creating activities - they would add it to their profit.

One other minor point - I GUARANTEE Andy Puzder is a Republican.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
i thought so
No, what you thought is that I'd ignore you. I didn't. In spite of a nagging suspicion that you were just being a troll; I responded in a respectful manner to you with a great deal of information, none of which was actually addressed.

Thanks for the reminder. I will give my gut-feelings on you a little more credence next time.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
I don't see what the problem is.
Without regulation, businesses would be putting God knows what in their products and calling it "food". I have a RIGHT to know how many calories, fat, etc. are in the food restaurants are selling me so I can make an informed decision on what I purchase to consume.
Without the government requiring such information on food products, do you really think restaurants would volunteer this information?
Businesses can whine and complain all they want but government regulations are for the protection of consumers.
And trust me, businesses would NOT use this money to invest in job-creating activities - they would add it to their profit.
One other minor point - I GUARANTEE Andy Puzder is a Republican.
I find it interesting that those who took issue with my information saw the one thing they felt actually useful once and emotionally knee-jerked on it. You don't need to be literally surrounded by and enveloped in nutrition information. It's not making you or society more health-conscious.

Consumers aren't the only ones in need of protection here.

I know, I know... the evil corporations and anyone with an (R) after their name who'd serve you poison because they want you dead and a government and everyone with a (D) after their name wants to protect you from them. And all the other simpleton BS that comes with an issue framed this way.
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, what you thought is that I'd ignore you. I didn't. In spite of a nagging suspicion that you were just being a troll; I responded in a respectful manner to you with a great deal of information, none of which was actually addressed.
Thanks for the reminder. I will give my gut-feelings on you a little more credence next time.
Right...

U have zero business cred but pretends to
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I find it interesting that those who took issue with my information saw the one thing they felt actually useful once and emotionally knee-jerked on it. You don't need to be literally surrounded by and enveloped in nutrition information. It's not making you or society more health-conscious.
Consumers aren't the only ones in need of protection here.
I know, I know... the evil corporations and anyone with an (R) after their name who'd serve you poison because they want you dead and a government and everyone with a (D) after their name wants to protect you from them. And all the other simpleton BS that comes with an issue framed this way.
If company X makes a cookie but never disclosed that it has traces of peanuts in it

and your kid--let's say, is allergic to peanuts--eats them and gets a rash, are you ok with that?

poor company X having to be diligent on their product sold to consumers who are both rich and poor
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2012, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
well sunshine, i would have you know i've had my own business since 1990
tell me then what does the fda do besides keeping our food supply safe?
I don't think it's about "what they do besides keep it safe", it's how they do it and based on what THEY define as safe. The FDA has limits to how much mercury, arsenic, and other chemicals/contaminants and poisons that can be your food. People trust the FDA when the FDA says something is declared safe, not realizing that these limits tend to be on the dangerous side of safe. The FDA also changes their mind on such limits of safety all the time; not always for the better. If an industry goes at the FDA and makes a convincing argument that it's impractical to get toxic limits low, the FDA will declare it safe. During tests of the gm flavor savor tomato it was found to cause lesions in the stomachs of the lab rats, when the FDA failed the gm product those scientists were reassigned and replaced with people who would pass it; it was only removed, quickly I might add, from store shelves when it sent people to the hospital. And typical of all things government, the FDA has weird ideas of things to do that don't necessarily make it safer yet serve a bureaucratic purpose. Im probably not on the same page as ebuddy with all this; I think we all like having an FDA, however it needs to be kept on a tighter leash as does the rest of the government. When I worked for the government ~80% of what we did didn't correlate with protecting people as much as fulfilling the purpose of bureaucracy for self marketing purposes. Like when Mao of China had his farm compounds all compete for who could produce the most food; they found ways to twist the numbers and lie about the true production to score points with the people at the top. That's what we spent time doing in every agency and office of government.

i just want 1 example of how the fda the ada burdens small business owners?
Companies have to pay to be regulated. It's not like regulation comes from income taxes; taxes are just used for wealth redistribution and to line politician's pockets. For example the last permit I applied for, to make a small expansion had a $35,000 application fee. If I were a big business this would be a drop in the bucket, but for small business it hurts each time they have to do this. These fees are priced for big corporations; the thing is back in the day when many of the largest corporations got started such regulations and their fees didn't exist yet, so they had a much easier road paved out for them to get where they are today. Today small businesses aren't just fighting competition from larger ones, but ever increasing regulatory fees and licenses.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 02:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
well sunshine, i would have you know i've had my own business since 1990
WTF is wrong with you? From what I've seen he talks with you in a civil manner, he doesn't deserve that. You must have ulcers the size of golf balls, being angry and hating life that much.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 03:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
Right...
U have zero business cred but pretends to
I've worked for several small businesses in a leadership capacity and am very aware of how they operate, what concerns them, how they address those concerns, and the implications of these moves longterm. You have business cred because you simply claim to own a business on an internet forum? For all I know you're selling used bubblegum downtown for spare change. Do you have employees ironknee and do you regard them as lowly know-nothings with zero business cred? And no slobbering here ironknee, just answer the question.


For the reasoned among us; I'm not advocating anarchy. There are important functions and there are functions that become bureaucracy run amok. When these things are not kept in check, they inevitably become very expensive agencies that simply collect and face no audits on their usefulness or effectiveness while lacking a healthy consideration for the implications of their folly. I believe this is the point we've come to and if anyone trying to advocate for small business must be rendered a cigar-chomping fat cat in the minds of the zealous left to feed their emotional outbursts-- so be it. If the measures are hurting businesses more than they're helping anyone else, we all need protection from government, not of it.

BTW, a government this hungry for growth will eventually encroach on your freedoms as well. Trust me.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I find it interesting that those who took issue with my information saw the one thing they felt actually useful once and emotionally knee-jerked on it. You don't need to be literally surrounded by and enveloped in nutrition information. It's not making you or society more health-conscious.

Consumers aren't the only ones in need of protection here.

I know, I know... the evil corporations and anyone with an (R) after their name who'd serve you poison because they want you dead and a government and everyone with a (D) after their name wants to protect you from them. And all the other simpleton BS that comes with an issue framed this way.
The existence of huge numbers of products on the grocery shelves with huge colourful labels proclaiming "fat free" or "low sodium" or "NEW! 25% less xyz" is a direct shot to the bow of your statements, and your argument. I disagree entirely. I believe it is making me, and society, more health-conscious about what we eat - and companies have figured out that making the exact same product, with the exact same taste, have "x% less y" means they will be more successful.

To be clear: I don't know anyone - anyone - who doesn't look at the nutritional labels when they shop nowadays. No one. I stopped by the grocery store yesterday morning to pick up a loaf of bread and compared the front nutritional labels of two different types of multigrain breads - and went with the one that had slightly more calories, but a good bit more fibre. Hell, I smoked a couple racks of ribs yesterday afternoon to bring over to some friends, and when I arrived one of the girls was looking up "calories per rib for baby back ribs" on Google - just so she could figure out what she should be eating. It's a topic that regularly comes up in the work lunchroom - what particular packaged product someone is eating, and how that product actually has [surprisingly high or surprisingly low] sodium or [surprisingly high or surprisingly low] amounts of x, y, and z.

I would consider this an absolutely essential regulatory requirement, and would be outraged if it were dispensed with. I feel that as modern societies become increasingly sedentary, it's also an essential regulation to provide some measure of health-consciousness and a measure of available self-help to the general population, which will benefit society as a whole. So, good luck complaining about it - it's not going anywhere.

And, I consider this conversation to be a microcosm of the current "crying in the wilderness" divisiveness in American politics. Instead of actually promoting something useful, you're arguing about stuff like this - stuff that has huge, measureable benefits for a large measure of the population, and promotes a topic (healthy living/eating) that is sorely needed in one of the most overweight nations in the world. It's not realistic by any measure of the word - and just one more complete "policy stalemate" that will result in the issue going absolutely nowhere and nothing being done. And yet, that is exactly the type of result that you constantly complain about.....
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
WTF is wrong with you? From what I've seen he talks with you in a civil manner, he doesn't deserve that. You must have ulcers the size of golf balls, being angry and hating life that much.
are you kidding me?

you got that from me calling him sunshine?
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've worked for several small businesses in a leadership capacity and am very aware of how they operate, what concerns them, how they address those concerns, and the implications of these moves longterm. You have business cred because you simply claim to own a business on an internet forum? For all I know you're selling used bubblegum downtown for spare change. Do you have employees ironknee and do you regard them as lowly know-nothings with zero business cred? And no slobbering here ironknee, just answer the question.

For the reasoned among us; I'm not advocating anarchy. There are important functions and there are functions that become bureaucracy run amok. When these things are not kept in check, they inevitably become very expensive agencies that simply collect and face no audits on their usefulness or effectiveness while lacking a healthy consideration for the implications of their folly. I believe this is the point we've come to and if anyone trying to advocate for small business must be rendered a cigar-chomping fat cat in the minds of the zealous left to feed their emotional outbursts-- so be it. If the measures are hurting businesses more than they're helping anyone else, we all need protection from government, not of it.
BTW, a government this hungry for growth will eventually encroach on your freedoms as well. Trust me.
maybe you have but you have not created a business

i've had up to 12 employees throughout the time and had to deal with health insurance, payroll, business plans etc

if i lived in the flyover states i might have hired you
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 09:15 AM
 
For yet another time in my life, I'm voting 3rd party because the (D) and (R) candidates aren't worth voting for. I have resources, in local and state elections I've worked to get good people elected, but on a national level the political system is a complete clusterf*ck. I just don't care, and I refuse to waste time and money on it anymore.




Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
are you kidding me?
read his posts to me

I did, the post I quoted is when it started going off the rails, and I've still not found any where he's being obnoxious.

I'm just earnestly throwing this out there, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. This isn't isolated with you, or just the (D) people on this forum, but by and large, they're more hostile and confrontational by nature. It makes it harder to side with any of you of that ideology. It's very off-putting to more relaxed people who want to discuss issues and find solutions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm just earnestly throwing this out there, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. This isn't isolated with you, or just the (D) people on this forum, but by and large, they're more hostile and confrontational by nature. It makes it harder to side with any of you of that ideology. It's very off-putting to more relaxed people who want to discuss issues and find solutions.
I generally tend to find myself somewhere in the middle - a Canadian conservative, meaning fiscally conservative, socially a little more liberal, generally supporting both government restraint and a strong social safety net in a manner that would make Tea Partiers' heads explode, but completely willing to accept that having higher taxes than the States is a perfectly okay solution to running balanced budgets - and as somewhat of a third-party observer, I'd say that for every subego, hyteckit, ironknee, etc. there is an ebuddy, Crash Harddrive, stupendousman, Chongo, or Badkosh.

In other words, my observance is that the ying balances the yang...
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
For yet another time in my life, I'm voting 3rd party because the (D) and (R) candidates aren't worth voting for. I have resources, in local and state elections I've worked to get good people elected, but on a national level the political system is a complete clusterf*ck. I just don't care, and I refuse to waste time and money on it anymore.
I did, the post I quoted is when it started going off the rails, and I've still not found any where he's being obnoxious.
I'm just earnestly throwing this out there, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. This isn't isolated with you, or just the (D) people on this forum, but by and large, they're more hostile and confrontational by nature. It makes it harder to side with any of you of that ideology. It's very off-putting to more relaxed people who want to discuss issues and find solutions.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
...I didn't think you'd be able to handle the information and I was right. This is a complaint of business owners and those trying to start businesses, you wouldn't understand. ....
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I generally tend to find myself somewhere in the middle - a Canadian conservative, meaning fiscally conservative, socially a little more liberal, generally supporting both government restraint and a strong social safety net in a manner that would make Tea Partiers' heads explode, but completely willing to accept that having higher taxes than the States is a perfectly okay solution to running balanced budgets - and as somewhat of a third-party observer, I'd say that for every subego, hyteckit, ironknee, etc. there is an ebuddy, Crash Harddrive, stupendousman, Chongo, or Badkosh.
In other words, my observance is that the ying balances the yang...
No, there is no balance. I'm bewildered that you're saying there is. All of the combined conservative posters you listed don't hold a candle to certain individuals on this forum who hail from the Left, much less all of them. It's difficult to find civil Lounge/Pol-War posts from them, at all.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post

That's being obnoxious?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's being obnoxious?
circle of life

and then i said:

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
well sunshine, i would have you know i've had my own business since 1990
and then you said:

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
WTF is wrong with you? From what I've seen he talks with you in a civil manner, he doesn't deserve that. You must have ulcers the size of golf balls, being angry and hating life that much.
so what did i say that was so angry? that i called him sunshine?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 02:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I generally tend to find myself somewhere in the middle - a Canadian conservative, meaning fiscally conservative, socially a little more liberal, generally supporting both government restraint and a strong social safety net in a manner that would make Tea Partiers' heads explode, but completely willing to accept that having higher taxes than the States is a perfectly okay solution to running balanced budgets - and as somewhat of a third-party observer, I'd say that for every subego, hyteckit, ironknee, etc. there is an ebuddy, Crash Harddrive, stupendousman, Chongo, or Badkosh.
In other words, my observance is that the ying balances the yang...
No, there is no balance. I'm bewildered that you're saying there is. All of the combined conservative posters you listed don't hold a candle to certain individuals on this forum who hail from the Left, much less all of them. It's difficult to find civil Lounge/Pol-War posts from them, at all.
Oh really? And the fact that Abe and Kevin were simply so crazy as to get banned outright simply takes them out of the equation? And Big Mac's randomly spontaneous explosions of rage don't count, either? I maintain that there are equally extreme posters on both sides.

As frustrating as it is to deal with hyteckit and ironknee, I maintain that it's equally frustrating to deal with the obnoxious, persistent ignorance of other conservative-leaning posters. That's simply a fact. Of course, IIRC you've made your share of what I would consider ignorant posts on climate change, so it's all relative.....
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
The existence of huge numbers of products on the grocery shelves with huge colourful labels proclaiming "fat free" or "low sodium" or "NEW! 25% less xyz" is a direct shot to the bow of your statements, and your argument. I disagree entirely. I believe it is making me, and society, more health-conscious about what we eat - and companies have figured out that making the exact same product, with the exact same taste, have "x% less y" means they will be more successful.
Do you have any information to substantiate the claim in your last sentence?

Otherwise, your first point is actually a direct blow to the idea of regulation. The reason the labels are colorful with exclamation points is because they've identified an important niche and are marketing to it, but make no mistake -- it's a niche. That's the free market hard at work. I will say this, obesity statistics seem to suggest people are giving less of a sh!t about what they eat now with more information available to them than ever before; which to me makes your suggestion that people are more health-conscious because of government action almost laughable. It's doing so much good that we'll now to be required to include them on menu boards, on the outside of vending machines, and any flyers advertising food. It's ridiculous... and useless. (unless you're interested in bureaucracies and the penalties that help fund them -- sort of)

To be clear: I don't know anyone - anyone - who doesn't look at the nutritional labels when they shop nowadays. No one. I stopped by the grocery store yesterday morning to pick up a loaf of bread and compared the front nutritional labels of two different types of multigrain breads - and went with the one that had slightly more calories, but a good bit more fibre.
So... you're overweight then. Look, for what it's worth I consider you at least as aware as hyteckit and individuals like yourself have always -- read -- always known what to get and what not to get. You've never needed to be surrounded by nutrition information.



Hell, I smoked a couple racks of ribs yesterday afternoon to bring over to some friends, and when I arrived one of the girls was looking up "calories per rib for baby back ribs" on Google - just so she could figure out what she should be eating. It's a topic that regularly comes up in the work lunchroom - what particular packaged product someone is eating, and how that product actually has [surprisingly high or surprisingly low] sodium or [surprisingly high or surprisingly low] amounts of x, y, and z.
Okay, I was in the frozen foods section with my wife and I overheard a girl laughing with another girl; "I don't even want to read what's in this" while throwing the container of moose tracks ice cream into her cart. Anecdotes. You've missed the point so I'll make it again, I'm not taking issue with this regulation or that, I'm taking issue with the breadth and volume of them. Labels on containers = good, but of arguable merit when considering the obesity problem. Labels necessary on menu boards, on the outside of vending machines, and any flyers advertising food is ridiculous.

I would consider this an absolutely essential regulatory requirement, and would be outraged if it were dispensed with. I feel that as modern societies become increasingly sedentary, it's also an essential regulation to provide some measure of health-consciousness and a measure of available self-help to the general population, which will benefit society as a whole.
The NLEA for labeling requirements passed in 1990. When will this demonstrate its benefit to society as a whole? For all I know it's lead to an increase in suicide with a writ of guilt in every bite. Suicide = bad. Fried foods = bad. Apples and oranges = good. Large portion sizes = bad, smaller portions = good. Loafing in front of the TV = bad, at least 30 minutes of daily, moderate-impact aerobics = good.

So, good luck complaining about it - it's not going anywhere.
And neither is obesity.

And, I consider this conversation to be a microcosm of the current "crying in the wilderness" divisiveness in American politics. Instead of actually promoting something useful, you're arguing about stuff like this - stuff that has huge, measureable benefits for a large measure of the population, and promotes a topic (healthy living/eating) that is sorely needed in one of the most overweight nations in the world. It's not realistic by any measure of the word - and just one more complete "policy stalemate" that will result in the issue going absolutely nowhere and nothing being done. And yet, that is exactly the type of result that you constantly complain about.....
No. You, not unlike most of the zealous left of this forum; cannot separate emotion from sober conversation which is what Shaddim was trying to explain to you before you brought up global warming. Any measure to limit the scope of government immediately must become anarchy. Any advocate of a cut in the rate of increase in funds for enter program here is demagogued as an attack on the recipient of that program. Anyone who attempts to counter the FUD of runaway global climatic turmoil hates the environment... and on and on it goes.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh really? And the fact that Abe and Kevin were simply so crazy as to get banned outright simply takes them out of the equation? And Big Mac's randomly spontaneous explosions of rage don't count, either? I maintain that there are equally extreme posters on both sides.
As frustrating as it is to deal with hyteckit and ironknee, I maintain that it's equally frustrating to deal with the obnoxious, persistent ignorance of other conservative-leaning posters. That's simply a fact. Of course, IIRC you've made your share of what I would consider ignorant posts on climate change, so it's all relative.....
So, you're saying that a post that you deem as "ignorant" is the same as a post where someone is verbally abusive towards another poster? Swearing and getting upset about Obama and DNC policy is the same as taunting and swearing at another member on this forum? No sir, absolutely not.

There are countless other places online where that type of behavior is encouraged. If all someone wants to do is sling poo, it's best to just climb into a cage with some chimps. The Anandtech politics forum is such a zoo, and there's no shortage of animals in it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 06:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No. You, not unlike most of the zealous left of this forum; cannot separate emotion from sober conversation which is what Shaddim was trying to explain to you before you brought up global warming. Any measure to limit the scope of government immediately must become anarchy. Any advocate of a cut in the rate of increase in funds for enter program here is demagogued as an attack on the recipient of that program. Anyone who attempts to counter the FUD of runaway global climatic turmoil hates the environment... and on and on it goes.


As I've noted many - many - times, I live in a country and vote for our ruling "Conservative Party"; what a nice name, huh? As a nation we're highly conscious of balanced budgets and constraining the growth of government. Socially we're likely as conservative or more conservative than the States on family issues - our marriage rates are higher, our divorce rates are lower, and percentage of single-parent families are lower and hasn't grown since the 90s - we've just trended towards that lovely libertarian-ish view of "let's not worry too much about regulating same-sex marriage or abortion", and wouldn't you know, we're pretty obsessed as a nation about balancing a strong safety net with budget surpluses caused by the reduction of government size and spending as a percentage of GDP using time-honoured and completely realistic methods such as, oh you know, setting taxation to an appropriate level to accomplish that goal.

So don't give me sanctimonious speeches on the "zealous left": I'm "left" only in the fact that I don't blindly believe that the word "regulation" is bad - since I'm paid to, you know, review legislation and regulation on a daily basis. It's like any other tool - there's good uses and bad uses, and I see nutrient requirements on produced foods as a highly essential tool to promote healthy nutrition and education in a society that is increasingly sedentary due (almost entirely) to technology and the rise of white-collar employment.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Labels on containers = good, but of arguable merit when considering the obesity problem. Labels necessary on menu boards, on the outside of vending machines, and any flyers advertising food is ridiculous.
And pray tell, how will removing these labels help the situation? Given that the rise of incredibly high-intake "fast food" is a first or second major contributer to obesity in the developed world (in conjunction with lack of exercise as noted above), how does "removing nutrition labels on menu boards and vending machines and flyers" in any way help the situation? You're suggesting that it's better for people to just be completely ignorant about what they're consuming, rather than to give them that information up-front, and let them choose to simply eat it anyway, knowing - as your specific example with the ice cream girl showed - that it's "wrong"? How is the former in any way a more effective way to combat obesity?

So, yeah. To sum up, you'll notice that your above quote addressed zero of my own comment, even though you phrased it as a "response":

Originally Posted by me
And, I consider this conversation to be a microcosm of the current "crying in the wilderness" divisiveness in American politics. Instead of actually promoting something useful, you're arguing about stuff like this - stuff that has huge, measureable benefits for a large measure of the population, and promotes a topic (healthy living/eating) that is sorely needed in one of the most overweight nations in the world. It's not realistic by any measure of the word - and just one more complete "policy stalemate" that will result in the issue going absolutely nowhere and nothing being done. And yet, that is exactly the type of result that you constantly complain about.....
I'll say it again: way to die taking a stand on some lonely hill. You'll duke to the death over food nutrient regulations, of all things - a requirement that won't disappear, if you're being realistic about it - as long as, in the meantime, you don't need to take the meaningful step of raising taxes, which will absolutely be required in order to balance your budgets. Stalemate on!
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh really? And the fact that Abe and Kevin were simply so crazy as to get banned outright simply takes them out of the equation? And Big Mac's randomly spontaneous explosions of rage don't count, either? I maintain that there are equally extreme posters on both sides.
As frustrating as it is to deal with hyteckit and ironknee, I maintain that it's equally frustrating to deal with the obnoxious, persistent ignorance of other conservative-leaning posters. That's simply a fact. Of course, IIRC you've made your share of what I would consider ignorant posts on climate change, so it's all relative.....
So, you're saying that a post that you deem as "ignorant" is the same as a post where someone is verbally abusive towards another poster? Swearing and getting upset about Obama and DNC policy is the same as taunting and swearing at another member on this forum? No sir, absolutely not.
You're being willfully blind and deliberately obtuse.

A very simple search reveals a multitude of posts by those generally regarded as "conservatives" which are highly and specifically derogatory towards posters who are not conservative. You are trying to re-write a clearly available history if you're claiming that Big Mac, Abe, Kevin, BadKosh, stupendousman, et al. have not regularly and repeatedly gravely insulted posters who are not of the same political persuasion or who do not hold the same "beliefs" as they do.

That is a simple fact. You can ignore it if you like, and pretend that it is not the case. However, I would argue that approach makes you part of the very problem you're pretending to be "above".
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 11:06 AM
 
I don't know what's more ridiculous: ebuddy's assertion that only the "leftists" here are emotional, or Shaddim's assertion that only the "leftists" engage in insults. Both are clearly suffering from persecution complexes.

BTW, ebuddy and Shaddim: there are almost no "leftists" on this board. To be liberal is not "left." In almost the entire world, the word "leftist" means some kind of socialist. A liberal is not a socialist.

And "leftist" is pretty much an economy-oriented viewpoint only. Someone who is pro-choice or pro-gay marriage is socially liberal, not leftist.

I know you are merely Americans, and your tiny sliver a of political spectrum doesn't have any real leftists, so you get confused by what the word means. But if you call me a leftist, I'm gonna correct you, because words have real meanings. I'm a liberal, not a leftist. And like Shortcut above, I'm certainly not a leftist if I vote for the Conservative Party.

But this problem with terminology is simply typical of American conservative hysteria, screeching "OMG SOCIALIZM! OMG LEFT-WING RADIKALS!" at every little thing. And then claiming you're not being emotional or insulting when you do this.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 11:09 AM
 


The hardest question in assessing the U.S. economy over the past few years — and thus in judging President Obama’s performance — is: “compared to what?”

The mark of a lazy pundit or a political hack is their dodging of this question. They’ll say something like “unemployment is still above 8 percent” or “we’ve had 30 months of straight private-sector job growth” and then sit back as if they’ve closed the case. They haven’t. They’ve said what is. They haven’t said what would’ve been had we chosen another path. They haven’t said what could’ve been if we’d chosen the best possible path.

Here’s the thing about once-in-a-lifetime economic storms: They don’t happen very often. And so we don’t have much data about them. And without having a really solid understanding of what usually happens, or what could have happened, it’s hard to come to solid judgments about how policymakers performed. Trying to judge the aftermath of a historic financial collapse against the baseline of a perfectly normal economy is a fool’s errand.

Josh Lehner, a senior economist at Oregon’s Office of Economic Analysis, decided to try to judge the past few years against a more appropriate baseline. He picked through Carmen Reinhart and Vincent Rogoff’s epic history of financial crises and pulled out “the big five” of the last century: Spain in 1977, Norway in 1987, Finland in 1991, Sweden in 1991 and Japan in 1992. Then, just for good measure, he added the Great Depression.

First, he checked to see whether these crises were close in severity to the crisis we’ve just been through. They were. This table measures the change in the unemployment rate, home prices, and other economic indicators from the pre-crisis peak to the lowest point in the recession. As you can see, we’re pretty much in the ballpark. Just your “garden variety, severe financial crisis,” as Reinhart and Rogoff have said.


The “financial crisis” part of our financial crisis was very much in line with the other crises on this chart, and perhaps even a bit worse. Housing prices fell even further than the average. But the hit to the unemployment rate and economic growth was significantly less. That gets us back to Lehner’s employment chart, which is also at the top of this post.

So our financial crisis was very bad. But the damage to the real economy, while bad, was less than it’s been in the past.

I spoke with Lehner about his results earlier today. “I would say the immediate response once we realized that everything was in a freefall in late 2008 was pretty good,” he said. “There was a coordinated worldwide effort from both central banks and governments that managed to throw a lot of money into the system to ease financial conditions and stop the freefall at a spot that was less severe.”

That’s what you see on the graph. We begin plummeting at much the same rate we did during the Great Depression — but then we stop. There’s good reason to believe that stop was, as Lehner says, the result of the financial rescue and the global stimulus efforts.

What happens after the stop, however, is less impressive. The recovery is steady, but it’s slow. Much slower than what we see elsewhere on the graph. “The recovery to date has been more disappointing,” Lehner says.

The question, of course, is why. Is it simply unrealistic to think we could bounce back from such a severe financial crisis much more quickly? Was the stimulus too small? Too short in duration? The wrong approach altogether? Where would we be if we’d passed the American Jobs Act, or if the Federal Reserve had moved to nominal-GDP targeting? How about if we’d done more to bail out underwater homeowners?

Longtime readers know my read of the evidence is that more stimulus would’ve been helpful, and the Federal Reserve could have done more. I’m less certain of how fast a recovery policymakers could actually have achieved. In a world of perfect policy, is unemployment 7 percent today? Or is it 6 percent?

Sadly, there’s nothing on Lehner’s graph that answers that question.

Does this graph prove the bailout and the stimulus worked? | WashingtonPost.com

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't know what's more ridiculous: ebuddy's assertion that only the "leftists" here are emotional, or Shaddim's assertion that only the "leftists" engage in insults. Both are clearly suffering from persecution complexes.
BTW, ebuddy and Shaddim: there are almost no "leftists" on this board. To be liberal is not "left." In almost the entire world, the word "leftist" means some kind of socialist. A liberal is not a socialist.
And "leftist" is pretty much an economy-oriented viewpoint only. Someone who is pro-choice or pro-gay marriage is socially liberal, not leftist.
I know you are merely Americans, and your tiny sliver a of political spectrum doesn't have any real leftists, so you get confused by what the word means. But if you call me a leftist, I'm gonna correct you, because words have real meanings. I'm a liberal, not a leftist. And like Shortcut above, I'm certainly not a leftist if I vote for the Conservative Party.
But this problem with terminology is simply typical of American conservative hysteria, screeching "OMG SOCIALIZM! OMG LEFT-WING RADIKALS!" at every little thing. And then claiming you're not being emotional or insulting when you do this.
Jesus, let's not devolve into nitpicking terminology. The majority of the board is US centric and deals with US topics. Because of that, you demonstrate know exactly what they meant. There is no need to use a different definition just because you don't like how things are in the US. It's like complaining about inches and pounds.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Jesus, let's not devolve into nitpicking terminology. The majority of the board is US centric and deals with US topics. Because of that, you demonstrate know exactly what they meant. There is no need to use a different definition just because you don't like how things are in the US. It's like complaining about inches and pounds.
I'm not a leftist, I'm a liberal. That's why it matters to me.

You don't think there'd be a legitimate complaint if I called every conservative on the board a fascist?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I'm not a leftist, I'm a liberal. That's why it matters to me.
Fight the good fight then. Leftist is the new scare word since they wore liberal out but it isn't working.


Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You don't think there'd be a legitimate complaint if I called every conservative on the board a fascist?
I can think of one conservative member who's prone to similar hyperbole. Most people make fun of him.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I can think of one conservative member who's prone to similar hyperbole. Most people make fun of him.
Speaking of word meanings, you should look up hyperbole in the dictionary, because you don't seem to know what it means.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Speaking of word meanings, you should look up hyperbole in the dictionary, because you don't seem to know what it means.
Oooo! Spicy!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You're being willfully blind and deliberately obtuse.
A very simple search reveals a multitude of posts by those generally regarded as "conservatives" which are highly and specifically derogatory towards posters who are not conservative. You are trying to re-write a clearly available history if you're claiming that Big Mac, Abe, Kevin, BadKosh, stupendousman, et al. have not regularly and repeatedly gravely insulted posters who are not of the same political persuasion or who do not hold the same "beliefs" as they do.
That is a simple fact. You can ignore it if you like, and pretend that it is not the case. However, I would argue that approach makes you part of the very problem you're pretending to be "above".
See? You just can't do it. For whatever reason, like many others, you can't keep from being insulting and demeaning. It's like this oppressive level of snark and intellectual bullying from a majority of people on the Left who are highly educated, though I've also seen it in less educated individuals who spend a lot of time associating with the first group. While it is true that no one side is blameless in this, there is a definite pattern at work, if you go back and look at the flow of discussions you'll see. Getting irritated and taking it out on politicians and ideologies isn't equal to doing the same to other members of this forum. Personally attacking people for disagreeing with your views doesn't benefit anyone, and you only end up harming yourself.

A while back my wife told me I was becoming a real asshole. So I spent a good bit of time in introspection and looking at my past behavior objectively. She was right. It appears that as our wealth increased, so did my ego. I've always been fairly obnoxious, but it was in more of a friendly, self-deprecating way. Somehow along the way I'd piled on arrogance and obscured my humility. So I've spent some time re-identifying with who I was and working to get back to that place. Intellectual "wealth" often affects people in the same way. After I graduated from college I was much the same, and I had to deflate my head, now I'm having to do it again.


This is starting to come full circle in this election, coincidentally, as the average American is beginning to feel that Romney is getting harassed and seeing Obama and the mainstream media as bullies. Before long Romney will acquire the "common man" appeal that GWB had, and the Left will lose this election, if they keep it up.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,