Here’s another of the “discussions” I find myself getting
into on Facebook. I haven’t had one of these in a while and it was fun.
Names are changed.
Enjoy…
Sean
Barney
Ug.
Bart
Team War Monger? Pass. 12 years of pro-Patriot Act pro-NDAA
pro-War on Drugs is enough for me. I don't need another four years of watching
my civil liberties, right to choose, and self-determination stripped away by
someone who thinks he knows how to run my life better than me. [I understand
the Patriot Act and NDAA complaints – both civil liberties. But the War on
Drugs has started decades before Obama & Bush, and Romney would continue it
just like every President will for the foreseeable future. And I don’t
understand the “Team War Monger,” right to choose, self determination and
“someone who thinks he knows how to run my life better than me” complaints.
Those are straight out of the right-wing talking points playbook.]
Barney
You must have missed the debate. Lol [I honestly don’t
know what this statement is in reference to. I think he just wanted to say it.
So he said it.]
Bart
No, I watched it. It confirmed that Team Obama and Team
Romney have the same playbook, coaches, and owners. It's why it's poor sport. [I
think people who claim that both Parties and all politicians are the same are
just cowards afraid to make a decision that they may later be wrong about. The
Parties and all politicians are NOT equal. And Romney out-lied Obama 27-0
during the debate, so Obama’s “owners” must be disappointed for not following
the “playbook” and losing. Bla bla fuckity bla. And yes, according to Republican tax messaging, Donald Trump WOULD be considered a "small business," so the President wasn't even wrong about that.]
Barney
Well, as far as the Patriot act, I agree. But economically,
Obama is driving us off a cliff, at least Romney has a clue how to run a
business. [Running a business not only has NOTHING to do with governing a
country, but historically, Presidents who previously owned businesses were
among the nation’s WORST Presidents. If one were to care about statistics.*]
Bart
When Romney comes out in favor of taking a closer look at
the Federal Reserve and the boom-bust cycle I'll be more inclined to agree with
you on the economy. Until then, I lean toward seeing him as doing the same
gaffes that Obama has committed. [Coward.]
Barney
Didn't Romney recently call for an audit on the fed? [Yes.
It’s a standard cry of the Republican Party. Only, he did it in his usual
noncommittal way by stating he also didn’t want to sacrifice the Fed’s
independence or hand over its control to Congress in the process. Also, calling
for a Fed audit is funny coming from a guy who refuses to release his own tax
returns.]
J. Jonah Jameson
America is not a business. Cue Barney rant..NOW.
Barney
Well, not exactly, but Obama never ran a lemonade stand [Nothing
to do with running a country.], and he's
driven our economy into the toilet [Not according to facts. Just
fervently repeating this accusation will not make it come true]. Maybe if you want this country to be better off in
four years you should consider who's running the place. [I’m sure
he’s doing that. I can’t say the same for you.]
J. Jonah Jameson
I'm not a fan of either, all politicians are shit, but I'll
take him over Romnuts. Bush ran an oil company and he did worse with the
economy, so the businessman argument holds no water. [Hmm. Someone who
analyzes information to make an informed opinion. I’m not used to encountering
this technique on Facebook. Definitely not a Republican.]
Barney
Does being a liberal automatically make your memory lapse?
It was the housing bomb that ruined the economy. Until that bubble burst, we
had an average 4-5% unemployment rate under Bush. What drives me nuts is how
many times I hear what a great boom we had under Clinton's tax hikes... but
nobody EVER mentions that the boom was the internet boom. Had nothing to do
with taxes. ah, anyway... [Being liberal does not make one’s memory lapse,
but apparently being conservative makes one’s ability to use facts lapse. I
know that was a childish ‘rubber/glue’ retort, but his statistics ignore the
events of Bush’s last two years, as well as the build-up to those last two
years and ignores the fact that Clinton’s tax hikes didn’t destroy business in
America, which Republicans claim is what going back to those rates will do.
Neither of which, had anything to do with Obama. And, people DO mention how the
tech boom under Clinton was an economic factor all the time. Republicans, however,
pretend no one mentions it just to give them something over which to complain
about Clinton.]
J. Jonah Jameson
For one, I'm not a liberal. I have conservative views and
liberal views and am registered Independent. [Hah! I knew it!] I don't swallow whole an entire party platform
unlike some. And yes, I'm aware of the housing bubble. I also didn't mention
taxes, but I very well could. And the tax hike argument is about how a surplus
was attained. If you don't think the tax cuts had any effect then you need to
burst that little bubble you live in. Not to mention two unpaid for wars. Great
economic practices there, awesome arithmetic. But keep sucking up the drivel
Fox keeps force feeding you, bro. Feel free to continue your rant by yourself,
I have actual work to do and not all day to argue via FB, as is your apparent
hobby, Mr. Miller. [I rather enjoyed that fact-based mini-rant, sir.
Thank you.]
Sean
I love how Barney always conveniently forgets who ran the
country into the toilet. Good thing us logical folks remember that stuff. Cue
rant!
Barney
Dude... it wasn't that long ago. I remember exactly how it
went down, and you can't blame it all on Bush.
[Now, I know I didn’t have to insert myself into this
discussion. It’s just that whenever I see someone spewing shit-talk, which
makes no sense upon the simplest of inspection, my teeth start squeaking
together and my temples begin to pound. And I have to do something to relieve
their plight. Also, even though he was doing a great job, it seemed J. Jonah
Jameson was leaving the mud pit to go back to real life.]
Bill Mancuso
Actually, you can blame it all on Bush. Two unpaid-for wars
and two tax cuts and the recession they led to, which began in 2007 (almost a
year and a half before Obama took office) amount to just under half our current
debt. Also, the housing crash began in October 2007 (15 months before Obama
took office). Obama, however has created more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did
in 8 years. As of this October, there have been 30 straight months of job
growth. And there are more jobs now than when Obama took office, so he's a net
job creator. And the stock market has risen 64% since Obama took office. And
all of this through four years of 100% Republican obstructionism - that's putting
Party before Country. But these are facts, so please, continue to ignore them.
This clip has gotten a LOT of mileage in my posts.
Barney
The financial collapse was caused by the burst of the
housing bubble. Up until that happened, we had an average of 4-5% unemployment.
My God, is your memory seriously that bad? It really wasn't that long ago.
Bill Mancuso
Which happened in 2007. During Bush. A year and a half before Obama. Right? My God, is no right-wing soldier even
remotely good at math?
Barney
Hey Bill, did I ever say that the financial collapse didn't
start under Bush? That isn't the same thing as saying that it's 'all Bush's
fault'. [He’s right. It’s not all Bush’s fault. Bush just poured gasoline on
the fire for eight straight years.] The
house of cards that was the housing bubble began back in Carter's day, and
through the terms of 5 presidents grew until it finally burst under Bush. It
would take way more typing than I'm willing to do to explain exactly how that
happened, and frankly it'd probably be a waste of my time to try to explain it
to you.
I never blamed Obama for the financial collapse. He's got
plenty to account for of his own doing, and the recovery-that-never-was is his
to own. I just don't want another 4 years of worse than anemic growth. I've got
a family to feed, and I feed them better when the economy is humming and people
have extra money to spend on original art. [Barney is a comic book artist
and sells his original artwork at conventions.]
Bill Mancuso
Carter's fault. Good one. But we should stop blaming Bush,
right?
You said of Obama that "he's driven our economy into
the toilet" when he clearly has not. That seems to contradict the notion
that you "never blamed Obama for the financial collapse." He drove
the economy into the toilet, but you don't blame him for the financial
collapse. Ok. I get it. Mitt logic. Talk in circles and hope no one notices
that you make no sense.
And you might want to lay more blame on 100% Republican
obstructionism for keeping this recession going. Seeing as how their #1
priority was to oust Obama instead of helping to create jobs or boost the
economy or relieve the housing crisis or take care of returning vets or get
people affordable health care.
Oh, and they also kept busy with their #2 priority:
subjugating women all the way back to the mid 17th century.
I blame Obama for not having bigger balls and standing up to
the Republican obstructionism. But in his second term, I'm sure he'll be better
about that.
Barney
Bill, I don't know you from Adam, and you don't know me. I
debate this crap waaaaay too much, and sometimes I use shorthand that 'new'
readers might not quite grasp. For that, I apologize. [Shorthand, longhand,
mediumhand: lies are easily disprovable in whatever length you decide
to tell them.]
Obama, if you recall, had total government control when he
took office. He had a super-majority in the senate and a huge majority in the
house. He could get anything he wanted passed in those two years, and he did.
He passed a stimulus package that he PROMISED would keep the unemployment rate
below 7%. It peaked at over 10% (and that's an inaccurate number to begin with,
true underemployment is around 33% of the working age population). He spent his
political capitol and his supermajority juggernaut on pushing through stimulus
and Obamacare, neither of which anyone read before they were forced to vote on it
(breaking another promise that all bills would be made available online for a
while before they were voted on, nevermind his promise that all these
negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN).
So for two years, while our country was nose-diving into economic
oblivion, Obama did what for jobs? A failed stimulus package and Obamacare. For
two years, when he had NO 'republican obstruction', because they didn't have a
voice in government... And after two years, what happened, do you recall? It
was only two years ago. The people got sick of Obama and the Democrats not
listening to them, and not working with the other half of the people's
representatives. And low and behold, a wave like we haven't seen since Newt
took over congress in 94 hit Washingdon DC, and liberals were knocked out of
office left and right.
Those Republicans were voted into office to STOP OBAMA. And
thank GOD they've done as much as they have to do so. You try to blame them for
this weak recovery? You need to stop watching MSNBC and look around. The world
isn't as you seem to think it is.
Sean
Barney, you broke my Facebook! Damn politics, making comic
artists act stupid.
Bill Mancuso
Hey, I wasn't done, Sean. I want to be the one to break your
Facebook. (that wasn't supposed to sound threatening)
I don't know you from Adam, either, Barney, and I debate
this stuff all the time, too. No need to apologize. I am not a "new
reader" to right-wing fact obfuscation tactics. Apparently, the difference
between your style of debate and mine is that I use facts and you use the
standard debunked lies repeated from FOX "News."
First, the stimulus helped. After the year it took to help
get us out of Bush's job-hemorrhaging economy, there's been 30 consecutive
months of job growth. And like I've said, the fact is there are now more jobs
than when Obama took office. So, stop saying "our country was nose-diving
into economic oblivion." That's patently false.
Then there's the 64% rise in the stock market, not to
mention record-breaking corporate profits and the lowest tax rates in 60 years
during his administration.
And Obama NEVER had "total government control when he
took office" and NEVER "could get anything he wanted passed."
That Republican lie is used to cover their tactic of 100% obstructionism. Which
they then use to blame Obama for not getting anything done. And then demand
Americans to vote for a Republican for President. After they tried to destroy
the economy for the purpose of blaming Obama. Putting Party before Country is
anti-American.
He needed a super-majority, 60 seats or more in the senate
in order to be filibuster-proof. Technically, he had that for a total of 6
months, but in practice, it never happened. Be patient, I'll explain.
Obama was inaugurated on 1/20/09. There were 58 Democratic
Senators at the time. Arlen Specter switched to Democratic on 4/29/09, bringing
the total to 59. Still one short of a super-majority. On 5/18/09, Robert Byrd
was hospitalized, so he was out of commission - back down to 58 (still 59 on
paper). Al Franken was sworn in on 7/7/09, bringing the total back up to 59
(technically 60 in theory, but not in practice - the fact-twisting point
Republicans like to use to spread their bullshit). A month and a half later, on
8/25/09, Ted Kennedy died, bringing it back down to 58 in practice (59 on
paper). On 9/24/09, Paul Kirk was sworn in to fill Kennedy's seat - back up to
59 in practice (60 on paper). Then, on 2/4/10, Republican Scott Brown was sworn
in to replace Paul Kirk - down to 58 in practice (59 on paper).
So, for actual voting purposes, Democrats NEVER had a
filibuster-proof senate. Even if we go with what was on paper (even though
hospitalized Robert Byrd never voted), that 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate
only lasted a total of 6 months.
No matter how many times "Obama had a super-majority
for two years" is repeated by Republicans, it will never magically make it
come true. Even if they're wearing ruby slippers.
And Republicans were voted in because they ran on a platform
of creating jobs. Which, they never did.
The very second they got voted in, they concentrated on stopping women's
Constitutionally protected right to an abortion (nearly 1,000 anti-abortion
bills since 2010) and getting rid of unions and filibustering EVERYTHING Obama
proposed - which included creating jobs, boosting the economy, helping the
mortgage crisis, helping college tuition, employing and caring for vets and
enabling people to afford health care. Republicans broke the filibustering
record in 2008 when they hit 61. They're at 375 now. Hey, Boehner, where are
the jobs you promised. (I especially love when Republicans say the government doesn't create any jobs, then blame Obama for not creating any jobs. Not to mention they all literally
have government jobs. And the
fact is Obama has created jobs.
But why should I expect Republicans to start making sense now, ay?)
If the Republicans were voted in to STOP OBAMA, it was to
STOP OBAMA FROM HELPING THE COUNTRY. And they certainly are trying to hold us
under water. But even in spite of their 100% obstructionism, Obama has managed
not only to keep us above water, but begin to rise out of it - as per all the
actual facts I have presented.
But please, ignore all these facts, too.
And don't get me started on the GOP's campaign of voter suppression.
Because if you can't get people to vote for you on merit, then just prevent
those who would vote against you.
[Of course I included links to back up my arguments. Lots of them...]
ThinkProgress: Unhappy Anniversary: Republicans Blocked The American Jobs Act For One Year
This video has also seen much mileage here.
Barney
I almost want to respond, but I can tell it wouldn't make a
difference. Good luck in the election. I hope your guy doesn't get beat up too
bad in the next debate. He looked like Loki after the Hulk got threw with him
in this one. ;)
Bill Mancuso
True. If Hulk was pummeling Loki with lies. Good luck with
your candidate as well.
Barney
lol
********
*** ******* * * ********
*** ********
I miss the days before my buddy “Richard” defriended me. He
wouldn’t have given in so easily.
I’ve been doing these Facebook “debates” for a few years
now. The main thing I’ve learned is that right-wingers Do. Not. Care. About.
Facts. At. All. So, the way I handle my responses is not to try and convince
them or even assume that I can. I simply go through their statements
point-by-point and reply with the facts. This is solely for the benefit of anyone
else reading the thread who might be interested in learning.
The way my opponent responds is to ignore 85% of what I said, then re-word one of their previous statements or just say I’m wrong or twist
some new bit of information.
The one thing I often do, however, is go back about a dozen
times and edit my sarcasm and profanity before I post it. (I will respond with equal amounts of
sarcasm or profanity if used toward me first.) The reason is because these
opponents are friends of my friends and I don’t wish to upset MY friends.
Fuck those other guys, though.
********
*** ******* * * ********
*** ********
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you
going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic,
what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” – Sam Harris
********
*** ******* * * ********
*** ********
* I originally posted this explanation of businessmen running the country like a business in
This 'n' That, but since it was only part of several topics in that post, here's the excerpt:
This 'n' That, but since it was only part of several topics in that post, here's the excerpt:
** **
Mittington R. Money, as
well as the rest of the Republican Party have continued to push the idea that
businessmen make the best Presidents. Mittington recently agreed with the
suggestion of a moronic fan of his that a new requirement for becoming
President should be three years of business experience. Aside from the
researchable historical fact that all the Presidents of the modern era that were businessmen first
(regardless of success) always
leave the country in a shambles, running a business for profit is the opposite ideology of running a country for prosperity.
Let's take a look at some 20th century Presidents.
Theodore Roosevelt,
Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a
businessman.
Woodrow Wilson,
Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a
businessman.
Warren G. Harding,
Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a very
successful businessman.
Calvin Coolidge,
Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a
businessman.
Herbert Hoover,
Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a
successful businessman.
Franklin Roosevelt,
Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a
businessman.
Harry Truman, Democrat:
Ranked by scholars to be a mediocre President. Owned a successful haberdashery
for two years until it went bankrupt when the recession of 1921 hit.
Jimmy Carter,
Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a
successful peanut businessman.
Bill Clinton,
Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a
businessman.
George H.W. Bush,
Republican: Ranked by scholars to be a mediocre President. Not one of the
worst, but not very good, either. Was a successful businessman.
George W. Bush,
Republican: Ranked by scholars to be pretty much the fucking worst President
ever. Was not at all a successful businessman. In fact, he failed at every
single business his father handed him. And he’s our only President that has an
MBA (from Harvard – just like Mitt does). But I digress.
This is not to say non-business people always make good Presidents. It
just clearly points out that a person with a business background is in no way a
qualification to be a good President. Especially since they have a 0% success
rate at presidenting. They are two completely separate skill sets.
And when Harvard MBA
venture capitalist, Mittington R. Money was Governor of Massachusetts, he was,
for a fact, 47th out of 50 in job creation. I wonder if that’s
something to take into consideration. No, I don’t. It is.
Pay close attention to
what this article says after
the individual President descriptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment