Or employing scare-rhetoric to protect a privileged economic position.

It's the trailer-park Fox News watchers spouting this bullshit that I really feel bad for.

Do you need a job Fitherton?
No Renka I am not anti tax, I think everyone should pay their share. I do not think taxing at different rates is fair. A flat tax would be fair. Everyone who earns money no matter how much or how little should be taxed at the same rate. Flat tax rate would be the only fair tax in my opinion.

I disagree, but that's for another forum

I'll let you know about the job when I finish grad school.

And if you don't mind me asking, aren't you the one who was saying you would deign to work for someone else, because your workload was so spotty? It isn't surprising that you would be willing to line up for money forcibly taken from people whose success you envy.

The funny part is how you support Obama, when he has given hundreds of billions to the very people you despise.

That's one way to interpret my actions and what I said. Not an accurate way, but a way.

I presume you're talking about the bank bailouts? Yeah, I'm not crazy about that. I see the necessity of it--unlike, I think, most on the other side of this debate, I'm able to see from a bigger picture than my own checkbook--but I wish it had been done with some harsher sanctions against the financial industry executives who steered the ship onto the rocks in the first place.

I think it's funny how you take what I said and cast it in charged, emotional terms. Suddenly there's a whole class of people I envy and despise. I never said any of that. But if that's how you have to put it so you understand it... You go right ahead.

Well, that and the minor point that Obama didn't orchestrate the bank bailouts...

Obama is the "man" now. He needs to start acting like it. What is Obama doing as the banks continue to screw the American public? Why is he letting banks get away with it? He wants us to buy into all of these government programs, but they don't follow up on the programs they have. Short memories.


From my local paper's editorial page.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...ry/870166.html

That article seems to be more upset about the general population not receiving handouts than the banks receiving them.

In any case, how is Obama to blame for the program lacking proper guidelines when the Bush administration set the program up and Congress was running around crazily claiming if they didn't act before December the entire economy would collapse?

What would him acting like "the man" entail? Doing whatever he wants regardless of how the program was initially designed before he was president without Congressional approval?

I'm not sure I understand your political philosophy. It seems to me that you would want a limited government, but when it comes to Obama and this bank loan program you want him to operate outside the bounds of Congressional and contractual limits constraining his power to do what he wants. How do you reconcile these kinds of disjunctions in your reasoning?

It's because Obama = Bad. :rolleyes:

The editorial board is known locally as notoriously left leaning.

Yes.

He is the establishment now, in my opinion he often still acts like he is a street protester. If he wants to do good for working people there are many simple and basic things that could be done, one being enforcing the loan modification program. The bank bailouts were a problem from the very beginning, most of us knew that, most of us thought government should give money directly back to the "people". If the program was set up inadequately (which as a candidate Obama said he was confident it met all of his requirements), he and Congress should change it, and do it now.

I don't like getting screwed up the a$$, figuratively (never tried it literally and have no interest). My dislike of getting screwed up the a$$ is not a partisan issue. I don't like the fact that my tax dollars were given to banks, and then have these banks turn around and raise fees, credit card rates, cut credit limits, restrict access to credit, and in the case of some like Goldman - make record profits, and give out billions in bonuses. Where is the outrage!!! I don't get it.:shakehead:

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------

Obama is "bad" for a reason in my book. I don't like bullshit artists, do you? Obama has not done a single thing for the average man since taking office. All his talk has been bullshit. All of it.

He brought Helen Thomas cupcakes in the White House Briefing Room for her birthday this morning. Does that count?

The WH press group is a joke. Have you noticed Helen has not been able to ask a question since:

Helen Thomas Ridicules Obama Torture Investigation Stance With Bush Comparison

I am betting she would rather be professionally respected than to get cup cakes from a bull sitter, wouldn't you?

ace....wtf are you babbling about now?

I recall her asking questions about Sotomayer, the Iran elections......

If true I stand corrected. I guess she got the message, hence the reward of cupcakes.

I like how your definition of "done" varies depending on the type of action. He "did" the bailout, but apparently he didnt do any of the provisions in the stimulus package, one or two of them Im quite sure are beneficial to the average man.

So Obama didn't sign credit card reform? Didn't get harder regulation on the sale of tobacco products?

Next time I use hyperbole, I will clearly state it is being used.

Like right now - I am using hyperbole - the bailout benefited finance fat cats/union fat cats/pet patronage projects, while the unemployment rate sky-rockets, foreclosures continue to go through the stratosphere, small businesses close shop, and little puppies go unadapted.

---------- Post added at 01:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

Let me know when the difference between the interest rate on a savings account and a credit card is less than 20%.

Obama signed the "credit card holders bill of rights" legislation in May.

Today, President Obama signs the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, marking a turning point for American consumers and ending the days of unfair rate hikes and hidden fees.
The White House - Press Office - Fact Sheet: Reforms to Protect American Credit Card Holders

Campaign Promise - establish a credit card holders bill of rights

While it is not a perfect bill, there were no efforts at credit card reform by the previous administration and Congress.
ace....is it better than NO credit card reform at all?

So Obama = Bad.

I got it, ace.

And a poke in the eye is better than two pokes in the eye.:eek:

There is no doubt that many people are satisfied with what is coming from Washington, I am not one of them. The credit card reform legislation actually does very little to help people who are in the most need of help - if we are honest about people being held accountable for being irresponsible and taking excessive risks, I understand - but why not apply that same logic to the companies that got "bailed out"? I need to stop making a connection between companies getting billions of dollars in tax payer money to bail them out, while they screw the American public. It is clear the only people outraged are the ones who make that connection.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

Perhaps indicating that you understand that there is a basis for my opinion would better indicate that you "got it", even if you disagree with my conclusion. For example with health care reform Obama is on tape saying he wants a single payer system, he is on tape saying it may take 5, 10 or 15 years to get there. Now the WH is saying people are taking his comments out of context, that he is a victim. Is that bullshit or what?

Should I start: Obama = Good. Leading people to infer that you should have no credibility in you comments about Obama because whatever he does will always be good to you? Would that be helpful? I can play games too, is that what we want?

Well, I'm not sure what you want. I asked for clarification on a few points in your commentary and you answered each question with a non sequitor. I don't know if you were trying to be absurd or if you believe you were answering the questions, but it seems to me that anyone else reading them would just think you're playing games.

Pointing out the content of an article you linked doesn't say anything about what you're using it for and your response is that the editorial board is left-leaning.
When I ask you "How..." and you respond with "Yes."
"Explain this discrepancy" by talking about being fucked in the ass

Then it becomes clear you're not invested in discussing your opinion but really just engaging in illogical ravings.

What's our responsibility to take the lunatic on the street corner seriously?
That's what you appear to be acting like...so why would you be surprised if people just politely mollify you and move on?

If I did not answer your request for clarification, I am willing to revisit it - give me the post #.

Perhaps I don't understand your point.

There are people who are eligible for the program who have not taken action.
There are people who took excessive risks and got themselves into a bad situation.
And, there are people who simply do not qualify. If that is a given, it still does not change the fact that financial institutions have taken advantage of the tax payer. They are being overtly defiant given billions in bonuses paid, and in some cases posting record profits. This is happening under a president who ran on the notion that he is going to look out for the little guy. Some people won't even try to get the help they qualify for because of pride or misinformation. This is happening under a president who is a great communicator, and has had more press conferences/town hall meetings/etc., than any president in my life time - he could influence people to act. CEO's of financial firms testify at hearings and get a verbal thrashing, but then go back and raise fees/interest rates/restrict credit/increase foreclosure activity and lay people off.

So, tell me - what is your point about the editorial board?

Of course I am illogical to you, just as you are illogical to me. I am totally confused by your lack of outrage. I am totally confused that you don't understand my point. I am totally confused how you fail to see that Obama is a bullshit artist.

You make your choices. If I am the only one with my views I am easy to not take seriously. If I am not, if I were you I would want to understand the illogical ravings. the choice is yours - the red pill or the green?

{added}

Here is somthing to chew on when you get your next credit card bill. From today's WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124951576916509361.html

Dude. Don't even play that. I've been very vocal about the criticisms I have of Obama's first several months.

The difference between you and me is, I try to base my view on facts, and you try to base facts on your view.

This view presented here is based on fact? You know that I develop a view and then find facts to support it, that I do not base my point of view on facts first. The reality is that there are facts to support my views, and perhaps you simply don't like those facts.

It continues to amuse me to the degree that I will post something, even include some outside source or even some facts, and the focus turns to me rather than the issue presented. Reminds me of a technique commonly used by, shall we say - Obama. Regardless of the merits of a criticism, the people making the criticism are just so, so, mean and dishonest in the way they go about attacking our poor constantly attacked President. Obama is so, so misunderstood. Obama is such a victim, and then I have the nerve to subject the readers here to illogical rantings not based on facts. Ace=bad. I got it. So, how about those Cubs...sorry...White Sox?:rolleyes:

I'm reminded of something my father told me once. He said, "Son? Don't argue with crazy."

Sorry, Dad. Won't happen again.

Ace, this is the way the screw turns in TFP Politics: I can't argue with your point, so I'll just call you names. "Crazy," for example. See how easy it is. I just won the debate.

It's brilliant that personal attacks are not condoned around here. Just brilliant.

I'm curious what points you think ace made about the credit card bill of rights legislation that Obama signed as not being in the interest of the "little guy"?

Nearly every consumer advocacy organization in the country praised the bill, despite the fact that it may not have gone far enough:

"This is probably the strongest piece of consumer legislation to pass Congress in a decade," said Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America.

"That's a big win," said Ed Mierzwinksi of US Public Interest Research Groups. "It gets rid of any 'gotcha" tricks."

"The bill picks up where the Fed's rules leave off, protecting all Americans from unjustified or excessive fees and stopping retroactive interest rate hikes that only bury struggling families in insurmountable debt..." said Lauren Saunders, Managing Attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.

Where's the beef in ace's bitching?

I noticed something similar in the healthcare thread. I state a simple opinion and BAM! I get nailed. Totally came out of left field. Didn't see that coming at all. Guess I shoulda read more than the original post.

I also like how select questions that I ask are ignored. I ask about personal experience with the topic. Oh wait, the guy just got his stats off of google. Jeez....

I'll say (on topic) that I don't feel obama has done shit other than replace bush. Any inactive president could have replaced bush and been a better guy than the last. The market is moving in a natural flow it seems, rather than being pushed uphill by a presidential force.

Health care...what is it in the expansion of the S-CHIP program that Obama signed that Bush vetoed twice that extends health care to an additional 4 million children of working class families (but who do not receive health care benefits from employers) that is not helping "the little guy"?

There used to be a sticky up top that informed folks that it was okay to call bullshit when you see it. That's how the screw turns here. It isn't personal- it's just that you can't tell someone that they're full of shit without referring directly to them.

This is a recurring problem with Ace, because he frequently pretends to lack the ability to either a) see causal links where they exist and/or b) not create causal links where none exist. So he cites information to back up his position that actually has nothing to do, or is only tangentially related to, his position. Then, when someone tries to reconcile this mismatch with him, he either pretends to not understand, reiterates his original position as if it still made sense, or says something else that is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.

It is a waste of time to argue with someone who seems to have such tenuous grasp of logic.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

We're talking about feelings here, dc. Facts have little bearing.

What about the point that the guy who is currently paying 20%+ , trying to do the right thing, is still paying 20%+? This is the same guy that may have been paying 10% a few months ago.

This is happening in an environment where these banks and get capital for 1% or less, they get billions in bailouts, the pay billions in bonuses, and one company in particular made record profits.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

SChip is not new. How many more children are insured today than under Bush or what percentage? What about the net impact adjusting for increased regressive taxes to pay for the program.

Also, I already stated that the statement was hyperbole. One of the differences between me and you is that when I get called on using hyperbole or exaggerating to accentuate a point, I acknowledge it. Hyperbole or exaggeration aside, the primary point is still on the table, Obama is a bullshit artist - he says one thing to one group and will say the opposite to another - he creates false choices - he hedges his comments to provide cover for whatever actually happens....

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

Mostly, when I ask a specific followup question, it does not get a direct answer or is completely ignored.

Like now, I am going to ask you to direct me to a specific example that illustrates what you are talking about. Just give me a thread and a starting post #.


Is this an exaggeration to accentuate a point or a bit of hyperbole?

This is exactly the point filtherton was making when he noted:

This is a recurring problem with Ace, because he frequently pretends to lack the ability to either a) see causal links where they exist and/or b) not create causal links where none exist. So he cites information to back up his position that actually has nothing to do, or is only tangentially related to, his position. Then, when someone tries to reconcile this mismatch with him, he either pretends to not understand, reiterates his original position as if it still made sense, or says something else that is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.

You consistently display an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge anything positive of any legislation or policy that does not conform with your pre-disposed ideology.

Instead you attempt to make the case in some convoluted manner that because such legislation or policies may not be perfect or go far enough (often because of Republican opposition), the good things they accomplish in helping the "little guys" are failures of Obama, the "bullshit artist."

Here. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2580359

See also: many other posts in that thread.

The short version is that you attempted use a single point of data as evidence for the existence of a trend. You can't do this and expected to be taken seriously. That's like using today's local high temperature alone as evidence that it is cooler today than it was yesterday. Without rereading the whole thread, it seemed like you were under the impression that the fact that you know people who wouldn't send their kids to a Chicago public school meant that Obama's choice for Secretary of Education did nothing to improve the schools while he was in charge of them. While it quite possibly might be true that the dude in question did not do anything to improve the Chicago Public School System, your basis for believing that he did nothing to improve the Chicago Public School System was erroneous. When I pointed your faulty reasoning out to you, you just restated it. Then you left me hanging.

This type of thing is fairly common and I would scare up more examples if I thought it would make any sort of difference. But it doesn't because in the end, you're going to read the evidence however the hell you want to and believe whatever the hell you want to believe. And this isn't even to single you out, because many other folks here do the exact same thing regardless of which side of the aisle they happen to reside on.

Nope. See the third to last sentence in post #509.

Or this:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...-nom-op-5.html

Where certain folks *knew* that Obama was just hankerin to keep the white man down via his supreme court nominee...

You have to be kidding. The Chicago public school system is generally a failure and has been for decades. This is common knowledge. Obama did not send his children to Chicago Public Schools. The Chicago school system is administratively top heavy, union dominated, and has an above acceptable level of incompetent teachers. Certainly there are some good schools and many successes, but on a whole anyone with real choice would not choose to send a child they love to a Chicago Public school. If you don't accept that, I suggest going to Chicago and spend a day talking to students, parents, concerned citizens, and those who moved out of the city because of the schools. I understand why we can not have a real serious discussion, we seem to exist in alternative realities. This is a recurring theme.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

Given limited time, what is the value in using it to point out what I like about a piece of legislation? My nature is to focus on what needs improvement.

{added}

Here is the latest Chicago Public School issue, wonder how long this has been going on and I wonder who is actually surprised:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...27067&ft=3&f=3

Hunh! Your nature changed radically on January 20, 2009.

If you check, my support of Bush was mostly for the Iraq war, straight talk and tax cuts. I did not support his bailout, inability to control excessive government spending, and certain things like his support of excise taxes on steel. On some other issues like the AG firings, Plame, executive power - I simply understood his actions and was surprised by the victim mentality coming from Democrats, especially those with political power. I saw those issues as more a commentary on the critics than on Bush. Bush seemed to know he was in a fight, Democrats did not.

Yes, and? You're proving my point. The fact that Chicago Public Schools may or may not suck is irrelevant. You argued that Obama's choice for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan,a was a bad choice because he had done nothing to improve the Chicago Public School System while he was in charge of it. The basis of your lack of faith in his efforts to improve the school system? That none of your friends would send their kids to a Chicago Public School and that Chicago Public Schools are poorly rated.

Nevermind that Chicago is notoriously corrupt or that even noncorrupt teachers unions are notorious cock-blockers when it comes to any sort of systematic change that doesn't preserve or enhance the slice of power they've managed to carve out for themselves. Nevermind that some test scores have improved, or that he (Arne Duncan) supports merit-based pay. Nope. You know some people who wouldn't send their kids to a Chicago Public School so clearly Arne Duncan sucks and hasn't done anything to improve Chicago Public Schools. Chicago Schools are bad right now, so Arne Duncan has never done anything to improve them.

I think my point was that it was a patronage choice and had less to do with objective qualifications in terms of results than with the two being "buddies", or the "Chicago way". I acknowledged that the choice was well educated and qualified. I was clear in saying that I would have chosen someone who actually got some results or who lead a successful school system. So, I am not even sure you understood the point I was making, and you did not seem to ask for clarification.