AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Diest TKO,

Diest, even I get offended at reading peoples responses back to foxfyre. The personal attacks on this site have become the new norm. I've been discussing this with cyclops the last few weeks and finally i put him on ignore.

Foxy might be wrong a lot but I don't often see her degenerate into name calling like many posters here do.

I mean really, what's the point of saying she has a glass jaw?

3 Replies

@maporsche,

I think the point is that Fox hides behind it to make up for what she lacks in intellectual exchange.

That matters here. Our only currency in the marketplace of thoughts is our barter of ideas. It may not be nice to call Fox a hypocrite, but it isn't any more polite for her to behave as a hypocrite. BTW, You'd be wrong about her not calling names. What she demands from others she doesn't give. She demands entitlement and privilege here. All arguments must be on her terms, even if those terms are an unreasonable abuse of said terms.

If you call her on it, she acts out some sort of martyr routine. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for her. I have a harder time taking her seriously. She made her bed, she can sleep in it. If she doesn't like that, she alone has the responsibility to earn back credibility here.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

If she doesn't like that, she alone has the responsibility to earn back credibility here.

I'd argue very strongly that certain people (possibly including yourself) will not give her that opportunity.

You can argue against someone's points in a polite manner; and you can do so without resorting to calling her names or engaging in personal attacks.

And it doesn't have anything to do with respecting HER. Being respectful of others is much more about respecting yourself and your own opinions. It's a personal choice YOU are making; foxy isn't forcing you to be disrespectful or rude.

If I see foxy do it, I'll call her out on it too; but I'm seeing the personal attacks come much more from the left than I am the right (may be a consequence of volume of posts coming from the left vs. the right).

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'd argue very strongly that certain people (possibly including yourself) will not give her that opportunity.

Not only would I do it, but I've outlined how. It's an old sore, but still one that personifies her main problem. I told her then and the offer remains, that her refusal to admit she was wrong about Cyclo prevented me from taking her seriously or finding her arguments worth entertaining. Perhaps I'm missing out on something she offers, but if in the face of the information provided to her that she was wrong about this kind of thing, how can I expect her to admit she is wrong about anything? I have zero interest in discussion with someone that stubborn, nor should I cater to it. Nobody should. She couldn't handle it, so she put me on ignore.

As for the number of posts relation to the left/right volume, I think that's probably correct. 3 venomous posts from the left and 2 venomous posts from the right should be scaled to how many posters are typically left and right respectively.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

For which you can blame the previous 8 years of unregulated greed under that dribbling fuckwit you love so much.

Who the hell is that "dribbling fuckwit" that you allege I "love so much"?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

but if in the face of the information provided to her that she was wrong about this kind of thing, how can I expect her to admit she is wrong about anything?

If THIS is why you're posting here (to 'get' other people to admit they are wrong, or to prove how right you are) then it's unfortunate that I won't be reading too many of your posts soon.

I have ZERO interest in getting people to admit anything to me; and I have even less interest in reading other people trying to get other people to admit things to them.

You need and should consider that your posts to other people (even those who are wrong or pig-headed) will have a direct impact on the quality of discussions you'll have with others (of the non-pig-headed variety). 1) arrogance and disrespect will keep people from agreeing with you publically and offering the opinions in support of yours and, 2) at some point people will simply place you on ignore to be rid of reading the garbage.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ALTERNATE CORRECTION!

Yes, population, jobs, GDP, and per capita income are all important factors in the full evaluation of our economy's SUPPORT of our population. However, total jobs are adequate to evaluate the general PERFORMANCE of our economy--that is, to evaluate how fast our economy is growing, staying the same, or shrinking.

In the 336 months, 1980 to 2008, the ECONOMY gained from 99 million jobs to 145 million jobs: an average gain of 137 thousand jobs per month.

In the first 8 months of 2009 , the ECONOMY lost from 145 million jobs to 139 million jobs: an average loss of 750 thousand jobs per month. That loss per month in the last 8 months is almost 5.5 times the average per month gain 1980 to 2008.

Since the year 1980, the population of the USA has been increasing, so there is no decrease in population that can explain the job losses in the first 8 months of this year.

That leads to the conclusion that our economy in the last 8 months would NOT be adequately SUPPORTING our population, even if our population were constant.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

President Obama doesn't walk what he talks! In other words, what he says he is going to do, is not what he does.

For example, he PROMISED TRANSPARENT development of a new federal government medical insurance plan. But now he is actually PROMOTING OPAQUE development of that plan by prohibiting Republicans in Congress from participating in that plan's detailed development.

For another example, he PROMISED that the Congress would have 72 hours to read the plan before voting on it. But he is PROMOTING the Congress voting on the plan before it is even written.

For another example, he PROMISED a plan that would slightly increase federal government expenditures. But he is PROMOTING a plan that will dramatically and frighteningly increase government expenditures, and will reduce even more the total number of jobs that his prior actions have already reduced and will further reduce .

President Obama is incompetent!

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

but if in the face of the information provided to her that she was wrong about this kind of thing, how can I expect her to admit she is wrong about anything?

If THIS is why you're posting here (to 'get' other people to admit they are wrong, or to prove how right you are) then it's unfortunate that I won't be reading too many of your posts soon.

It is not the sole reason why I am here map, but don't be obtuse, agreeing on basic facts is requisite in discussion. If people aren't willing to admit to these things when placed in front of them, we can't get to our real destination in debate.

If Fox says she didn't say something, and someone quotes her to prove it, should Fox pretend she didn't say it? Do you not believe people should have to defend or retract their statements? Do you find it acceptable to simply ignore this kind of thing?

maporsche wrote:

I have ZERO interest in getting people to admit anything to me; and I have even less interest in reading other people trying to get other people to admit things to them.

I see you challenge plenty of people on their points and you ask plenty of questions. You do this more than you are admitting, and you're inflating what I'm saying I want. I just what someone to honestly admit when they are wrong and presented with the proof. I want that, not for a trivial reason, but because how else con we proceed past that point?

maporsche wrote:

You need and should consider that your posts to other people (even those who are wrong or pig-headed) will have a direct impact on the quality of discussions you'll have with others (of the non-pig-headed variety). 1) arrogance and disrespect will keep people from agreeing with you publically and offering the opinions in support of yours and, 2) at some point people will simply place you on ignore to be rid of reading the garbage.

It isn't arrogant or disrespectful to call someone out when they double talk, lie, misrepresent something, make something up, or are being stubborn in light of being proven wrong. It's not uncommon for someone here to request proof of something. If I say something, and someone challenges it, then I go and fetch the proof, damn straight they should recognize that.

I'll make it simple for you. If you challenged someone, and they provided proof you where wrong, what would you think is the mature thing to do. In your words, describe how you would address this (if you would) and your reasoning. I think you care more than you admit on this.

If it truly bothers you that I would want someone to resolve their own contradictions, (1) are you going to be able to manage that standard with your posts and (2) what are you doing on a debate forum?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Foxy might be wrong a lot but I don't often see her degenerate into name calling like many posters here do.

You're not paying attention. She regularly introduces her posts by declaring, in one way or another, that the liberal "numbnuts" are too stupid to understand her point or the point of the author of whatever she gleans from her morning email. She places her condescending trash on the curb as a preemptive attack against anyone who would dare to disagree with whatever she is posting.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

It is not the sole reason why I am here map, but don't be obtuse, agreeing on basic facts is requisite in discussion. If people aren't willing to admit to these things when placed in front of them, we can't get to our real destination in debate.

If Fox says she didn't say something, and someone quotes her to prove it, should Fox pretend she didn't say it? Do you not believe people should have to defend or retract their statements? Do you find it acceptable to simply ignore this kind of thing?

I often ignore those kind of things. I don't think it adds to the debate. If you think she's wrong, and you post evidence/proof that she's wrong, then your job is done. There is no need to convince her that you've won, or to keep going on and on and on trying to convince her that you've won.

And surely, these instances shouldn't carry across multiple un-related threads (as they tend to do now).

Diest TKO wrote:

I see you challenge plenty of people on their points and you ask plenty of questions. You do this more than you are admitting, and you're inflating what I'm saying I want. I just what someone to honestly admit when they are wrong and presented with the proof. I want that, not for a trivial reason, but because how else con we proceed past that point?

I do challenge people. And I ask questions. I even prove people wrong. What I don't (at least, very rarely) do is ask them to admit they are wrong (really, I don't care). And I've never spent pages and pages and pages trying to do so.

Once you've proven someone to be wrong you can proceed from there. Silence is agreement. If they thought your proof was incorrect, they would challenge you on it. If that person posts the same garbage again, you can prove them wrong again. All the wile, you can do this in a respectful way.

Diest TKO wrote:

It isn't arrogant or disrespectful to call someone out when they double talk, lie, misrepresent something, make something up, or are being stubborn in light of being proven wrong. It's not uncommon for someone here to request proof of something. If I say something, and someone challenges it, then I go and fetch the proof, damn straight they should recognize that.

Nobody has any obligation to recognize that. Nor is recognition of proof required in a debate. If you present proof, and it goes unrebutted, you win. You don't need the challenger to admit you've won, and you damn sure don't need to spend pages and pages telling them to admit you won.

Quote:

I'll make it simple for you. If you challenged someone, and they provided proof you where wrong, what would you think is the mature thing to do. In your words, describe how you would address this (if you would) and your reasoning. I think you care more than you admit on this.

I would generally admit I was wrong (and have done so). I have also left someone's rebuttal go un-rebutted which, as I've mentioned, is generally regarded as an admission that the argument is over, and that I'd lost.

And yes, I plan to, and hope I do live up to these standards. I have little doubt that I won't and I've finally figured out a good use for the 'ignore' button. Those posters who tend to drag conversations into this realm of discourse (and sometimes me along with them) will be added to the ignore list and forgotten.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Now that you mention it, I do recall her using the term numbnuts pretty often.

I can see how that is insulting and if she returns and I see it again, I'll challenge her on it.

I do see a difference though in using a general insult like 'numbnuts' and someone specifically insulting an individual person. Maybe I'm wrong and there is no difference; but I feel it is much more crass to insult someone directly.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Once you've proven someone to be wrong you can proceed from there. Silence is agreement. If they thought your proof was incorrect, they would challenge you on it. If that person posts the same garbage again, you can prove them wrong again. All the wile, you can do this in a respectful way.

Map, if this actually played out, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This IS how it should be, but it is not. How many times is it reasonable to have to prove something?

Either way, it's not my desire (safe assumption it is not yours) to continue discussing forum decorum and the polite ways to address each other ad naseum.

Wouldn't you rather be discussing American Conservatism in 2008 and Beyond!?

T
K
Neutral

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Either way, it's not my desire (safe assumption it is not yours) to continue discussing forum decorum and the polite ways to address each other ad naseum.

Wouldn't you rather be discussing American Conservatism in 2008 and Beyond!?

I do think a discussion on forum etiquitte is needed. I've moved our discussion over here.
http://able2know.org/topic/137436-3#post-3787790

I'm not going to stop until you admit I've WON!!!!!

Laughing

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

AGAIN!

President Obama is incompetent! He doesn't "walk what he talks!" In other words, what he says he is going to do, is not what he does.

For example, he PROMISED TRANSPARENT development of a new federal government medical insurance plan. But now he is actually PROMOTING OPAQUE development of that plan by prohibiting Republicans in Congress from participating in that plan's detailed development.

For another example, he PROMISED that the Congress would have 72 hours to read the plan before voting on it. But he is PROMOTING the Congress voting on the plan before it is even written.

For another example, he PROMISED a plan that would only slightly increase federal government expenditures. But he is PROMOTING a plan that will dramatically and frighteningly increase government expenditures, and will reduce even more the total number of jobs that his prior actions have already reduced and will further reduce .

1 Reply

The right think Obama is an ideological Typhoid Mary

Quote:

Liberals loathed Bush, but we didn't invoke fantastical fabrications or root our arguments in metaphor instead of fact

[...]

There's a long history here, which is bound up in everything from the two sides' different definitions of patriotism " "my country right or wrong" versus "I want to improve my country because I love it" " to religion to militarism to cosmopolitanism to a thousand other things. Every American presidential campaign, on some level, is about the Republican trying to frighten people into believing that the Democrat doesn't share "your values" and the Democrat trying to reassure people that he does. So, for conservatives, Obama is not just a guy whose views they vehemently disagree with. He's an ideological Typhoid Mary, a carrier of unknowable and barely comprehensible infections.

That is qualitatively different from liberal hatred of Bush. It is also, to be blunt, paranoid " because it's rooted in metaphorical narrative far more than in fact. And that means facts can never win an argument. Obama could leave office in January 2017 with the capitalist economy roaring and American power and security enhanced and these voters would still believe we'd escaped state ownership of everything and one-world government by a whisker. It's been part of the psychology of the American right for decades, and it sure won't be dissipating as long as Obama is in office.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Again!

Population, jobs, GDP, and per capita income are all important factors in the full evaluation of our economy's SUPPORT of our population. However, total jobs are adequate to evaluate the general PERFORMANCE of the ECONOMY--that is, to evaluate how fast the ECONOMY is growing, staying the same, or shrinking.

In the 336 months, 1980 to 2008, the ECONOMY gained from 99 million jobs to 145 million jobs: an average gain of 137 thousand jobs per month.

In the first 8 months of 2009 , the ECONOMY lost from 145 million jobs to 139 million jobs: an average loss of 750 thousand jobs per month. That loss per month in the last 8 months is almost 5.5 times the average per month gain 1980 to 2008.

Since the year 1980, the population of the USA has been increasing, so there is no decrease in population that can explain the job losses in the first 8 months of this year.

That leads to the conclusion that the ECONOMY in the last 8 months would NOT be adequately SUPPORTING our population, even if our population were constant.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

For example, he PROMISED TRANSPARENT development of a new federal government medical insurance plan. But now he is actually PROMOTING OPAQUE development of that plan by prohibiting Republicans in Congress from participating in that plan's detailed development.

He's prohibiting Republicans from participating? How?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

PARTIAL HISTORY OF THE DECLINE OF THE USA’s FINANCE INDUSTRY

1977
President Carter signs into law CRA (i.e., Community Investment Act). Carter
Mandates banks invest in poor urban areas.

1995
Clinton changes CRA to require banks provide mortgages to their poorer communities.

2001
*04/30"Bush declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a potential large financial problem because financial trouble of a large "GSE (i.e., Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."

2003
*01/22"Freddie Mac announces it must restate financial results for the previous 3 years due to earnings report errors.
*06/11"Freddie Mac is the subject of federal securities and criminal investigations.
*09/11"New York Times says, "Bush recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
*09/25--Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country … I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
*10/29"Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004
*06/16"Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, repeats Bush Administration call "for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
*10/06"Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO, testifies before the House Financial Services Committee, "assets are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under two percent. "

2006
*05/25"Senator John McCain calls for GSE regulatory reform legislation, warning: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”
*11/07"Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress. The U.S. economy is growing at about 3 percent, unemployment is at 4.5 percent, and inflation under 2 percent.

2007
*08/09" President Bush requests Congress pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*12/06" President Bush warns Congress of need to pass legislation reforming GSEs.

2008
*03/14"J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve recognize extent of Bear’s toxic assets, including sub-prime mortgages, and credit default swaps, and interconnection with other banks.
*03/14"At Economic Club of New York, President Bush requests Congress take action and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*04/14"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/03"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/19"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/31"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*06/06"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*07/11"Senator Chris Dodd says: "There’s sort of a panic going on today, and that’s not what ought to be. The facts don’t warrant that reaction, in my opinion … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that. "
*09/15"Lehman Brothers officially collapses, the government does not intervene, and panic occurs, triggering a big Dow decline.
*09/16"Nancy Pelosi is asked if the Democrats bear some responsibility for the current crisis on Wall Street. Pelosi answers, "No. "
*09/17"Harry Reid regarding the economic collapse: "No one knows what to do."
*09/18"About 11:00 AM, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States within two hours, equal to about $550. Treasury puts $105 billion in the system, but quickly realizes it cannot correct the problem.
*09/18"Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ask Congress for the required funds"and unprecedented authority to bail out the entire financial system. They say failure to act means "we may not have an economy on Monday."
*09/23" Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Senate Banking Committee testimony outline the $700 billion asset relief program (TARP).
*09/29"That TARP version doesn’t pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
*10/03"Three days later TARP is passed after about $112 billion is added.
*11/05"The day after Barack Obama’s election, stocks plunge 500 points.
*11/12"Paulson changes the TARP rules from purchasing "troubled assets" to buying bank stocks to spur lending.
*11/23"Paulson gives Citibank a $308 billion bailout.
*12/06"Both houses of Congress agree to bail out the U.S. auto companies.
*12/18"President-elect Obama hints at an $800 billion to $1 trillion stimulus plan within his first month of office, and the Dow drops another 2.5 percent.

0 Replies

Jesus this **** is tedious.

When is the wealth redistribution team scheduled to go over to Ican's house and take his computer away?

God, it can't happen too soon for me . . .

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know