How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 03-02-2009 11:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, thank you for your in-depth response. I was surprised to see that statement by Ann Coulter. You may find this hard to believe but I have never watched any show of hers or read any of her books. After seeing a couple of guest shots of hers, I simply wasn't interested in her style. There are other conservative talk show personalities I ignore, also. They need to be more than simply conservatives to hold my attention. They need to be informative, intelligent and entertaining. I never perceived her to be. I'm surprosed and disappointed that she, or anyone, would make such statement.

I read the link about O' Reilly thoroughly and saw nothing that referred to advocating violence in any way, simply that he used "spin". Perhaps I overlooked the point? Whatever link you posted about him speaking of lesbian gangs is not there. You have a duplicated link about Hannity instead.

As far as Hannity cut and pasting Turner's interview which you claim could cause people "to behave in a violent fashion", forgive me but I find that to be a very weak example of advocating violence. If that were the case, 60 Minutes would be the greatest advocaters of violence in the country's history, since that is their specialty. Anyone who appears on their program has to sign a contract which states that 60 Minutes has all rights with regards to what portions of the interviews they wish to air and they simply leave anything that would contradict what they are trying to depict on the cutting room floor. That's why there are many high profile individuals that will not appear on the program.

Any of those commentators have a much larger audience than Reverend Jackson.  They literally have millions hanging on every word they say.

I see. So what is the cut-off number of listeners that makes something acceptable or not? A million? Five? Jesse Jackson's words influence millions of blacks. Is a million too small of an amount? Also, I know of a lot of people who listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and yet I know of no one who "hangs on their every word". They provide a lot of facts and are entertaining but they are hardly the gods you make them out to be. Oh, you are going to be seeing a lot of Limbaugh in the news in the coming days. They want him out. They can't get the Freedom bill passed so they will do everything they can to demonize and discredit him. They will keep him in the news constantly with the hopes there will be such outrage against him that he will have to be removed from the spotlight one way or another. You want to talk about inciting, Bob? Just watch...........

As far as what "in groups" can all each other....that's also weak.  Sharpeton came out in a speech declaring that the N word was an abomination that should be forbidden to be spoken by anyone. After Jackson's gaffe, he was asked if Jackson's use of the word was aceptable and he simply shook his head no and walked away, proboably muttering "That stupid (N word)", under his breath. Something is right or wrong. You would condemn a white conservative for using the word but excuse a black liberal with justifications such as - he didn't hold an elected office or - he doesn't have a bigger listening audience or - blacks can refer to each other that way, all of this unstead of just saying he was wrong and stepped over the line. Ok, he's all yours.

Yes, the republicans have only themselves to blame for being out of power because (1) they didn't lower themselves enough to stand up to the Democrats and (2) they didn't get the press behind them. In third world countries the ruling power makes sure to have the military behind them. In the US, it's the press. Control the press and you control the country because for every independent thinker out there, there are 50 so mindless their brains are nothing but sound bytes and headlines from what they see and hear. The republicans did everything they could to lose the last election. First, they nominated the one person who would not beat Obama. Romney or Huckabee would have beaten him, especially after the economy went down the tubes and esperience in that field became much more important. Then the person they nominated chose a running mate that insured he would not win. Palen is a good person with a good record but, after the initial euphoria of her selection wore off, people did not want her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, deserved or not. Yes, they have a lot to do to get their house in order, but none of it has to do with "violence advocating".

You know what scares me, Bob? I'm afraid that there WILL be a revolution coming...but not because of republican advocations. it will be due to the actions of Barack Obama. He is setting the stage for class warfare and I'm afraid it will come to pass. He is demonizing the rich (anyone making over 250,000 - that's rich?), hitting them with higher taxes, letting the people know that this "upper class" should be paying more of their fair share and should be taking care of the poor. What's going to happen when they don't get all of that money they are expecting? What's going to happen when the people who hire people hire less people to offset the extra tax burden placed on them? Now charitable donations made by the rich (same 250,000) are not as tax-deductible as they were. What's going to happen when those donations go down? Who are the receiptients of those charities going to go after when the money's not there? Who are the unemployed going to go after when there are fewer jobs? Obama? No, they'll go after the evil rich. In Germany last week gangs in the streets were using bats to trash any BMW's and mercedez that were parked on the streets. Don't think that can't happen here.

Obama wants people to give more so he is taking away tax breaks for donations. He wants to stimulate the housing market so he is cutting back mortgage deductions. He is showing daily that he has no idea what he is doing and has no experience to fall back on. I'm really afraid that it is going to turn classes of people against each other, which is what socialism does. He wants all government - all the time and it is not going to bode well for the country, I'm sorry to say. The country will rue the day Obama took over - and I blame the Republicans for that.

End (maybe) of rant.....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


51 posted 03-03-2009 08:38 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

You have just come up with a one-liner to end all one-liners, LR.

Where was that line for the past eight years?



Call me Shirley Mike.  Where has that line been for the last eight years?  Oh, probably coming from the people who were destroying Dixie Chicks cd's et al.

quote:

that the Democrats and liberal press cronies encouraged this type of reaction with their constant and untiring efforts to bash and belittle our "president in a time of war". So does this make democrats hate-mongers, as well?



Just like Abu Ghraib -- the problem wasn't the abuse -- the problem was the reporting of the abuse.  Guantanamo -- same thing.

It's never the responsibility of the Bush administration -- blame the press for reporting it.

Katrina -- the press's fault.

and here;

quote:

Yes, the republicans have only themselves to blame for being out of power because (1) they didn't lower themselves enough to stand up to the Democrats and (2) they didn't get the press behind them. In third world countries the ruling power makes sure to have the military behind them. In the US, it's the press. Control the press and you control the country because for every independent thinker out there, there are 50 so mindless their brains are nothing but sound bytes and headlines from what they see and hear.





So -- then, you think Reagan had control of the press?  That the press was behind him?  Well -- if you listen to the liberal talk radio hosts they will spout this kind of MSM nonsense too -- because, after all -- it is the big corporations that own the press.

But, now -- back to your list of homicidal maniacs -- which of them were invited onto the national stage to represent the mainstream Democratic voter?

What is the weapon of choice of liberals?  Civil disobedience.

Obviously you don't want to answer my questions -- so I'm just going to ask one more time -- who is in charge of the Republicans at this point?  

Micheal Steele? or Rush Limbuagh?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


52 posted 03-03-2009 12:18 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

When the Republicans win they win in SPITE of the MSM. When the Democrats win they win BECAUSE of the MSM. And that's only logical since the press is the cheering section of the dems.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 03-03-2009 02:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Where has that line been for the last eight years?  Oh, probably coming from the people who were destroying Dixie Chicks cd's et al.

Nice. You accus eme of evading your questions and you respond with stuff like that?  You know exactly what I meant by that question....flippancy won't take the meaning away. Democrats have used every sleazy tactic available for 8 years to attack and discredit our "president in time of war". Apparently you have no problem with that. Let someone criticize Obama and, all of a sudden, the "president in time of war" becomes relevant. An amazing transformation.....

What is the weapon of choice of liberals?  The press.

who is in charge of the Republicans at this point?   An excellent question....nobody. That's their problem.

Limbaugh should send you and BobK thank-you messages for elevating him to such lofty heights. You refer to" the Limbaugh prescription -- the answer to every problem is free markets, tax cuts, guns, anti-health care, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, abstinence, creationism, etc. ad nauseum" while BobK paints him as a man to whom millions hang on every word. The loveable little fuzzball is simply a talk show host, the kind the Democrats wish they had but could never find or create. Yes, I suppose tax cuts at a time the economy needs to be stimulated is a HORRIBLE idea. So is anti-socialized medicine. Right to bear arms? How goshe! What were the founders thinking anyway? Abstinence....how are kids supposed to have fun? Nintendo???

Yep,all ridiculous ideas. Better to raise taxes, cut benefits, and go further into debt than any governement in history....that's the perscription for a healthy economy.

We'll see...........

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (03-03-2009 03:02 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


54 posted 03-03-2009 03:05 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So, Denise -- if we follow the logic here and just for the sake of argument I assume that the MSM always 'helps' the Democrats -- then when the Republicans win it's because the voters don't like the MSM -- which means that they don't like the Democrats.

Conversely -- if the Democrats win it's because the voters like the MSM and therefore like the Democrats.

It seems either way -- the Republicans or Democrats win when the voters like them -- independent of the press.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


55 posted 03-03-2009 03:17 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Let someone criticize Obama and, all of a sudden, the "president in time of war" becomes relevant. An amazing transformation.....



Um, Mike -- that was me -- throwing it back in your face.   It's called sarcasm.

I'm sorry -- I have to get back to work right now and generate wealth for the economy.  But -- in the meantime -- it seems Rush is in charge since Steele had to immmediately apologize to him.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 03-03-2009 03:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks for the information, reb. I've never really known much about sarcasm, having never used it myself.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


57 posted 03-03-2009 08:59 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well Mike,

Just in case your commment about Rush being 'simply a talk show host' was out of context and not what you really meant there is an official Rush Apology Machine that will make it easy for you to apologize to him too... wouldn't want you to lose your Republican credentials.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


58 posted 03-03-2009 09:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Since when have the Republicans been "them" and "they" for you?

     If you actually believe that I have said something, I would feel flattered if you quoted me or if you asked me to acknowledge having said it.  I seem to have a fairly good record of actually acknowledging things I say.  If I disagree, I also tend to say so.  This saves me from actually having to pin you down every time you try to put words in my mouth, a process that makes me uncomfortable, since I like you, and I don't like to do things that occasionally make you at least appear uncomfortable.  If I did say it and recall it, I'll say so.  If I think it's out of context, I'll say that too.  My task is trying to find some consensus with you here, Mike.  If I end up making you look bad then, to some extend at least it's a failure on my part, and I don't like it.

     All my best, Bob Kaven    
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


59 posted 03-03-2009 11:06 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

You know what scares me, Bob? I'm afraid that there WILL be a revolution coming...but not because of republican advocations. it will be due to the actions of Barack Obama. He is setting the stage for class warfare and I'm afraid it will come to pass. He is demonizing the rich (anyone making over 250,000 - that's rich?), hitting them with higher taxes, letting the people know that this "upper class" should be paying more of their fair share and should be taking care of the poor.



quote:

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html



quote:

What's going to happen when the people who hire people hire less people to offset the extra tax burden placed on them?



Rich people don't sit around and think about the people they're going to just 'hire' Mike.  They invest in ventures that are going to competitively fill a market demand.

Without demand there is no need to hire anybody.  When demand is there -- they will hire.

Now, let's say Rush has his way and Obama is blocked at every turn.  What happens then?

We dive straight into a depression and the class warfare -- waged by the rich -- gets even better for them -- because in this environment -- when prices are going down -- the best position to be in is cash.  

As prices go down -- fewer people buy because they start to think the prices are going to go down further -- and every time somebody puts off making a purchase -- somebody loses a job. And, everytime somebody loses a job the market shrinks and demand goes down and prices go down -- and it feeds on itself -- and, guess what -- all the tax cuts in the world aren't going to entice the 'rich' to invest in a market that doesn't exist.

Conversely -- if we merely hired people with the stimulus package to dig ditches and then fill them back in -- they would have means with which to meet their needs and there would be a multiplier effect in the economy -- because other people would have to perform work to meet those needs -- 11 million shovels, 11 million pairs of workboots, 11 million hats, vests, vehicles to move them to the ditches -- and all of those people would need to buy cans of beans and microwave popcorn and pizza and cable television and valentines day presents and St. Patty's day beer -- all because somebody dug a ditch and filled it in.

But, what if instead we actually used that stimulus money to invest in long-term infrastructure that keeps us from sending a trillion dollars out of our economy every year and into the pockets of the sheiks?  Wind power, solar power, electric vehicles, electric trains, roads, bridges, making our Federal buildings more energy efficient, public health (yes, disease is a drag on the economy)... wow... if we did all that -- just think of the multiplier effect!  And the long-term benefit to the economy -- and the country -- and life, liberty, and the pursuit of ......

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


60 posted 03-03-2009 11:30 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Now let's take a look at the world in the Clinton administration when the marginal rate for the 'rich' was the mere 4% higher that Obama proposes in allowing the Bush 43 tax cuts to expire;

quote:

The performance of the U.S. economy over the past year has been quite favorable. Real GDP growth picked up to more than three percent over the four quarters of 1996, as the economy progressed through its sixth year of expansion. Employers added more than two-and-a-half million workers to their payrolls in 1996, and the unemployment rate fell further. Nominal wages and salaries have increased faster than prices, meaning workers have gained ground in real terms, reflecting the benefits of rising productivity. Outside the food and energy sectors, increases in consumer prices actually have continued to edge lower, with core CPI inflation only 2-1/2 percent over the past twelve months.

Low inflation last year was both a symptom and a cause of the good economy. It was symptomatic of the balance and solidity of the expansion and the evident absence of major strains on resources. At the same time, continued low levels of inflation and inflation expectations have been a key support for healthy economic performance. They have helped to create a financial and economic environment conducive to strong capital spending and longer-range planning generally, and so to sustained economic expansion. Consequently, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) believes it is crucial to keep inflation contained in the near term and ultimately to move toward price stability.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/hh/1997/february/testimony.htm



But now, this part is what you really have to love about the class war;

quote:

If heightened job insecurity is the most significant explanation of the break with the past in recent years, then it is important to recognize that, as I indicated in last February's Humphrey-Hawkins testimony, suppressed wage cost growth as a consequence of job insecurity can be carried only so far. At some point, the tradeoff of subdued wage growth for job security has to come to an end. In other words, the relatively modest wage gains we have experienced are a temporary rather than a lasting phenomenon because there is a limit to the value of additional job security people are willing to acquire in exchange for lesser increases in living standards. Even if real wages were to remain permanently on a lower upward track than otherwise as a result of the greater sense of insecurity, the rate of change of wages would revert at some point to a normal relationship with inflation. The unknown is when this transition period will end.

Indeed, some recent evidence suggests that the labor markets bear especially careful watching for signs that the return to more normal patterns may be in process. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that people were somewhat more willing to quit their jobs to seek other employment in January than previously. The possibility that this reflects greater confidence by workers accords with a recent further rise in the percent of households responding to a Conference Board survey who perceive that job availability is plentiful. Of course, the job market has continued to be quite good recently; employment in January registered robust growth and initial claims for unemployment insurance have been at a relatively low level of late. Wages rose faster in 1996 than in 1995 by most measures, perhaps also raising questions about whether the transitional period of unusually slow wage gains may be drawing to a close.

To be sure, the pickup in wage gains has not shown through to underlying price inflation. Increases in the core CPI, as well as in several broader measures of prices, have stayed subdued or even edged off further in recent months. As best we can judge, faster productivity growth last year meant that rising compensation gains did not cause labor costs per unit of output to increase any more rapidly. Non-labor costs, which are roughly a quarter of total consolidated costs of the nonfinancial corporate sector, were little changed in 1996.




You see -- the 'bankers' find it necessary to keep the non-powerful -- non-powerful.
I wonder why?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


61 posted 03-03-2009 11:34 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
But, what if instead we actually used that stimulus money to invest in long-term infrastructure that keeps us from sending a trillion dollars out of our economy every year and into the pockets of the sheiks?  Wind power, solar power, electric vehicles, electric trains, roads, bridges, making our Federal buildings more energy efficient, public health (yes, disease is a drag on the economy)... wow... if we did all that -- just think of the multiplier effect!  And the long-term benefit to the economy -- and the country -- and life, liberty, and the pursuit of ......


Yes, but think we need to go further. Is anybody ready for a moon to Mars run?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 03-03-2009 11:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Don't worry, reb. I don't need an apology machine for Rush...nothing to apologize for.

Bob, I'm not sure what you are referring to. The only comment I made concerning you lately was about your saying people hang on rush's words. If you would like the direct quote, ok..They(limbaugh, hannity, O'Reilly, etc) literally have millions hanging on every word they say.

Hope that clears it up, is that's what you were referring to.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 03-04-2009 12:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LR, you have your views on how things will play out and I have mine. Time will tell which is more accurate. Since you have expressed disdain about how Reagan cleaned up the Carter mess and applaud Obama doing the exact opposite to clean up this one, I think I'll stick with mine.

It's easy to talk about Buffett and the super-rich getting away with things and i'm sure they do...but what about the rest of us? What about the small business owners who file sole proprieterships? You think the $250,000 makes them rich? I can assure you it doesn't...and they make up one heck of a lot more of the working force than the super-rich do. You think cutting charity deductions will spur the economy? Cutting mortgage deductions will spur the economy? Ok, go ahead then..

But, what if instead we actually used that stimulus money to invest in long-term infrastructure that keeps us from sending a trillion dollars out of our economy every year and into the pockets of the sheiks?

That all sounds good, reb, and I agree with it. It's everything attached to it is where the problem is. You can say the heart and brain are necessary to life, too, and I'll still say "yeah, but what about the 300 lbs of flabby fat you're carrying around. Is that vital, too?" Obama's plans have that flabby fat, due to the Democrat shopping frenzy. You don't have a problem with that or the tons of entitlements in the newest package? Fine...that's your choice.

Sit back and we will watch and see what happens. If you can come to me in two years and show I was wrong, I'll be a happy man
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


64 posted 03-04-2009 12:58 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If someone is actually clearing 250k on thier Schedule C Mike, as a sole proprietor, they need to have thier head examined for not going LLC or INC. -- but that's a different issue.

Remember -- taxable income -- that's the part after all the expenses are taken out -- the part a small business would say is 'profit'.

That's some pretty hefty coin to live on compared to the median income.  Don't you think?

Now -- we both know that Reagan increased spending.  How do we know?  Because he left a trillion dollar debt in his wake.  His cutting of the highest margin down from 90% didn't increase revenues the way that the voodoo was supposed to work.

In fact -- in order to justify all that spending -- the Reagan administration came up with the explanation of 'starving the beast' to sell it to other conservatives -- the rationale went like this;

'if we spend all the money on the military -- then there won't be any left for entitlements'

and the other conservatives said... hmm.. yeah.. sounds good.

But, of course -- if the government is SPENDING -- it is stimulating -- regardless of what it spends on.

But if we can always find money to go to war -- then we can spend the money on universal health care -- in fact we already are spending it -- just not wisely -- because the 40million people plus who have no coverage go to the emergency room where they have to be seen -- and who pays for it?  We do in higher hospital bills.

We're already paying premiums for insurance -- we can use that to fund a universal single payer system.  Ask a Canuk.  Ask a Brit.  Ask anybody in the Western World except us.

They made more cars in Ontario last year than Detroit.  Do you know why Mike?  Because universal health care in Canada makes them more competitive.

Now, let's take the guy in the corner cubicle who has a great idea for a new business -- but he can't quit because his wife has pre-existing conditions which would prevent him from buying health coverage if he wanted to open that small business where he could make 250k per year.

So, instead -- he doesn't take the risk.  He stays safe -- makes 60k, keeps his head down and waters the plants in his cubicle day after day.

A bigger saftey net will encourage more people to walk the high wire.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 03-04-2009 01:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yep, universal health care in Canada is why so many come to the states for treatment. Of course they have to stand in line behind the Europeans who may have gotten there first.

As I said, we can plead our cases back and forth forever. The proof will be in the pudding. Right now the stock market and I share the same feelings.

Let's see what happens.....

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


66 posted 03-04-2009 01:53 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

          Here is a link about the Lesbian Gangs.  

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/2712


     At least I think it's about the Lesbian gangs, since, while I could get it to come up from my bookmark, it doesn't seem to want to from my Reply to Topic section.  I suspect that if you googled Mr. O'Reilly and the basic topic matter, you'd get some references.  The one I was trying to send you was from a woman who has a very good sense of humor about the thing and who turns the humorless Lesbian stereotype on its head.  Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. O'Reilly took the whole thing much too seriously and essentially made the thing up.  

     I can laugh about the notion of gays trying to convert non-gays, but a lot of your more paranoid folk take the notion a bit more seriously than the actual data warrants.  Maybe you can laugh at the notion — I hope so.  Poor Mr. O'Reilly doesn't seem to have the capacity.  This is one of the groups that he actively campaigns against, and attempts to raise ill feeling against when he can.  This otherwise hysterically funny story is an example.  I have heard some of his lengthy rants on secular Humanists as well, attempting to stir up feeling against folks who were essentially the same sort of folks as the founding fathers, whose essential faith was in a basic faith of reason to help work things through.  O'Reilly regularly distorts this sort of stuff as well.

     You and I disagree about the state of the press.

      I think that if you actually felt that the press was as left wing as you say it is, then you'd actually be in favor of equal time, because then your conservative point of view would get a fair shake and have a good airing, right?  I think you probably know how stacked against the left the media actually are.  You enjoy throwing the jibes, but any actual shift in the relative power structure is something that you'd scream about.  Loudly.  Even though I haven't seen any legislation proposed on the matter at this juncture.

Best wishes, Bob Kaven

     At this point the link works.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


67 posted 03-04-2009 08:11 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm looking for it Mike.  Where is the case you're pleading?  Now isn't the time to quit.  

What, exactly, is the solution to the problem Mr. Obama has been working on for all of six weeks now?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 03-04-2009 12:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If you want to continue the fencing, you have more time than I, LR. I am pleading no case at all. I stated my views about the pork/entitlements in the programs and that I feel Obama has created more of a crisis by screaming crisis than actually existed. I also feel that he is initiating a "class warfare" that will be detrimental to the country. Those are my views and you are not going to change them. You prefer to justify the porkiness in your own way, feel that it is necessary for the country to go into debt more so than ever in history, and feel that any class warfare will be conducted by the evil rich. I'm certainly not going to change your  views, either. The future will dictate which views are right.

It's already starting. Yesterday on tv, a basketball coach (I'm thinking UConn but could be wrong) was talking to the press after a victory and one reporter said something similar to "You are the highest paid faculty member here at 1.2 million. Based on the state of the economy, have you given any thought to giving some of that back?" The coach exploded and basically said "I bring in over 12 million dollars a year to this university. 1.2 million is reasonable"...and then he threw him out. You are going to see a lot of this, folks. It's only just beginning.

Anything else is just gum-slapping, LR. We'll find out soon enough........
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 03-04-2009 01:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I got nothing out of the lesbian gang piece that caused me to relate it to this thread. As far as cutting and pasting accusations, you are seeing the masters at work as we speak. As I said earlier in this thread, we are going to be seeing a lot more of Rush Limbaugh assaults in the days to come. Appears the days are already here. Democrats are doing whatever they can to use the cut and pasted comment "I hope Obama fails" to stir up controversy and accusations among democrats and republicans alike. I saw it on three different network news programs last night and today. Looking at it with an unjaundiced eye, if possible, one can recognizing the cutting and pasting they did to incite the public as much as possible against Limbaugh. You pointed the "inciting" finger at republicans so Im wondering what you think about this one....or do they get a pass? Hard to belive they are so dumb that they cannot see that things like that just make Limbaugh stronger. They make their accusations, Rush shows the actual comment in it's entirety and they look stupid...how many times will this happen before they catch on? Clinton should have warned them. Or perhaps their intent is to get just ONE incensed person out there mad enough to take matters into his own hands....but that would be inciting violence, wouldn't it? Surely democrats don't do that, do they???
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


70 posted 03-04-2009 03:23 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Limbaugh is another straw man

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 03-04-2009 03:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

right, John. He's just the latest diversion....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


72 posted 03-04-2009 06:04 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I think you’re right Huan, Limbaugh is a straw man but there’s a convincing argument that he’s a straw man created by the Republican’s lack of a clear leader.

The Democrats are taking pot shots at the most prominent Republican figure sniping at them from the parapet, which is standard practise in politics, but normally that would be a Republican politician. If a republican politician doesn’t raise his head above the parapet the Dems are quite naturally aiming at the next best target.

Amongst all the rhetoric from both sides this remains, at least to my mind, a valid point.:

quote:
This is not a shot at Bobby Jindal -- but at the Republican leadership that is failing to lead


The Republicans seem to me to be like an army without a General, they’re milling about criticising the Democrats battle plan but don’t have a battle plan of their own, meanwhile they’re leaving the job of defending the parapet to a straw man with a rusty musket and decidedly damp powder.

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


73 posted 03-04-2009 09:48 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh now Mike -- you don't need to go retreating into generalities again when we're starting to do so well with specifics.

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?'  And you have to admit the Bush Administration did its' best to follow in the Gippers footsteps...
quote:
On 22 September 2008, the US federal debt hit $10 trillion, before the $750 billion Wall Street bailout.



Gross National Debt

As you can see from the chart -- as a percentage of GDP after WWII our national debt was over 100% of our annual Gross Domestic Product... which was coming down and down and down and down and down until Reagan put us on the 'Starve the Beast' diet -- and then down again during the Clinton years - and then -- whoops -- that darn Reagan diet again -- seems like that must be where all that pork is Mike... something akin to the Atkins diet?

But, YES -- I do want to go into deficit spending and grow the national debt -- because it is exactly now when we need to do that -- and then pay it down in the good times when the investments are paying off.

There's really only three rules about borrowing money -- first -- don't.  And second -- if you do -- don't do it for stupid stuff -- like eating out or unnecessary wars.  Third -- if you have to -- borrow as much as you can for as long as you can.

My only real concern right now is that we be too frugal -- if you are trying to grow a business venture and you're under capitalized -- it's worse to borrow too little than too much -- so -- 14 trillion -- I say go for it Barack.

After the end of WWII and the Great Depression we enjoyed an explosion of the middle class.

Beginning with Reagan we've been steadily watching it shrink along with a flat standard of living.

quote:

I stated my views about the pork/entitlements in the programs and that I feel Obama has created more of a crisis by screaming crisis than actually existed. I also feel that he is initiating a "class warfare" that will be detrimental to the country.



Since you're parroting the Limbaugh line from the CPAC speech I deduce that you are in fact suggesting the party continue on the aforementioned Rush course.

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts....

Cut the taxes on the rich -- so that we can instead borrow the money from them (that they should be paying) and then our grandkids can pay them back.. sounds like a plan!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


74 posted 03-04-2009 10:58 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Mike,

     You got nothing out of an obsessive rant on the country being endangered by non-existent Lesbian Gangs from a man who portrays himself as a fearless culture warrior on the part of American conservatives everywhere, and who has an enormous audience of exactly these folks who apparently listen avidly to everything he says?  You feel that this has nothing to do with this thread?


     I thought this thread was titled, "How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?"

     At exactly what point do you feel that this is not as precise an example of a Beavis and Butthead mentality trying to avoid addressing the serious issues of the day as might reasonably be expected?  In addition it stirs up undeserved animosity against a subculture that already is a favorite scapegoat of the right wing.

     This seems to be a fairly straightforward set of assertions.  

1)  O'Reilly is a right wing spokesperson.

2)   He has an enormous right wing audience that swears by him, including the occasional PiP person, who believe that he brings out the truths that nobody else will.

3)   This is a case of O'Reilly telling a lie and making a very large thing of it.

4)     Either O'Reilly did not fact check or he did fact check and decided that the facts weren't important.

5)   No matter what, the details of this had to have been created out of unsubstantiated rumor and had to have been embroidered.

6)  If this is, as you say, not important, then why is it not important?

          In our last discussion of how bad the economy was, you dared me to show you by talking to common folks.
Some agreed with you, mostly Republicans, by the way, that things were fine.  Some disagreed, mostly Democrats as it turned out. that things were in the bin.  More agreed with me on the whole, though the sample was biased.

     All that showed was that you can't have a popularity pole decide on which way the economy is going to go.  You needed accurate information to have any sort of half-way decent chance at figuring out which things were going to happen.  It isn't impossible for Democrats to lie.  There are as many, I would suspect, Democratic liars as there are Republican liars.  As I said in a prior post, I remember Vietnam as well as you do.

     Exactly why you would suggest that the economy is better than evidence and experience has shown it to be, however, not just domestically but on a world wide basis, seems to be an example of the way Johnson characterized a second marriage — the triumph of hope over experience for an entire political party.

     Denial may be useful in managing some things.  I've seen people in chronic pain, for example, after they've gotten appropriate treatment otherwise, go a considerable distance on denial.  I've seen marriages survive on denial.  Children take care of elderly parents, and parents take care of extremely troubled children on a balance of love and denial (though the greatest of these is Love, as Saint Paul said).

     Sometimes some planning and pragmatic action in advance means that you don't have to use denial in the first place, though.  Remember when I said that somebody was going to have to pay off the credit cards, and that the longer we put it off the worse we'd like it?

     I wish I hadn't said it.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors