Jump to content
Ten oz

Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

Recommended Posts

It's not just taxes that increase year by year wages do too, in any and every country in history; the rich (countries or people) have a choice about what they're prepared to do for money (a means to live) the poor don't, they'll do whatever it takes; a wage is to enable the individual to live, a tythe/tax is to enable the populace to live. 

At some point in every nations chronology, the balance shifts and another nation becomes more efficient; that's the point where fear grows and hatred starts and walls are built and this thread begins. 

A business has just one objective and it's never patriotic. 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tar said:

So Swansont,  did the lady that sat with Trump in first class consent to the groping for many minutes and decide to leave when it got to heavy, as I said, or does the incident amount to rape and require the removal of our president from office?

False dichotomy (that means it's not an either/or situation, and it's intellectually dishonest of you to frame it as such)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

False dichotomy (that means it's not an either/or situation, and it's intellectually dishonest of you to frame it as such)

Right.  is my point.  The leader of the free world, happened to have enjoyed, as a millionaire, the favors of ladies, in his many encounters with such.  Such ladies often got something for their favors.  It does not make Trump the devil.  There is, in the apt mind, the ability to hold two contradictory ideas.   To denounce a person's treatment of women, while lauding their ability to command the discussion for two years with tweets.

Trump remains the most powerful person in the world.  This is higher status than you or I have achieved.  He must have some capability to rise to this position.   Since he is a millionaire himself, I doubt he was bought, and I don't think he is subject to the pressures that Wellington group or the Koch brothers might bring to bear.   He is an actual strong leader, with good ideas and speaks the truth, rather than playing identity politics.  He gets things done, and takes decisive action.

I think part of the problem, since the election is grief.

Hilary was on her way to be the first woman president, and when she lost, the hopes and dreams of millions were dashed.

I recently lost my dad, and looked up again the five stages of grief.  I knew them from before, as I looked them up when I was getting laid off my job, as everybody else was too, and I recognized the stages of grief being run through by myself and the people around me.    One of the stages is denial, and I think a large part of our country has been in this stage since the election.

If you were a Hillary supporter, look up the five stages of grief and reflect a moment upon which stage you are in.   One day you will arrive at acceptance, but judging by this thread, I would guess it is not imminent. 

Regards, TAR

just noticed I dropped another 3 rep points

no idea why what I am saying is at all wrong or evil

I am out again.  You guys are hopeless. 

You seem to enjoy responding to my posts, so I am thinking I am at least making you think.  Unfortunately I hate neg reps, and don't enjoy accruing them when I make a good argument.  

Sorry to challenge your narrative, but it needs challenging, and the real world needs to be lived in.  You need me and I need you.  The middle ground needs to be inhabited.  

Figure it out on your own.  I am out.   Deleting my favorite.  You are on your own for a while.

Disgusted, TAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tar said:

Sorry to challenge your narrative, but it needs challenging

Perhaps you'd have better luck if you took your own advice and used the neg reps as an opportunity to challenge your own narrative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tar said:

Right.  is my point.  The leader of the free world, happened to have enjoyed, as a millionaire, the favors of ladies, in his many encounters with such.  Such ladies often got something for their favors.  It does not make Trump the devil.  There is, in the apt mind, the ability to hold two contradictory ideas.   To denounce a person's treatment of women, while lauding their ability to command the discussion for two years with tweets.

Trump remains the most powerful person in the world.  This is higher status than you or I have achieved.  He must have some capability to rise to this position.   Since he is a millionaire himself, I doubt he was bought, and I don't think he is subject to the pressures that Wellington group or the Koch brothers might bring to bear.   He is an actual strong leader, with good ideas and speaks the truth, rather than playing identity politics.  He gets things done, and takes decisive action.

I think part of the problem, since the election is grief.

Hilary was on her way to be the first woman president, and when she lost, the hopes and dreams of millions were dashed.

I recently lost my dad, and looked up again the five stages of grief.  I knew them from before, as I looked them up when I was getting laid off my job, as everybody else was too, and I recognized the stages of grief being run through by myself and the people around me.    One of the stages is denial, and I think a large part of our country has been in this stage since the election.

If you were a Hillary supporter, look up the five stages of grief and reflect a moment upon which stage you are in.   One day you will arrive at acceptance, but judging by this thread, I would guess it is not imminent. 

Regards, TAR

You've got to be kidding me; someone who has more money than he/she needs can't be bought??? WTF Why do you think they need to buy a bigger Yacht?  

Someone who is content with what they have, can't be bought; anyone who wants a bigger anything is bought every day.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swansont said:

More distraction from the topic. Whenever you get caught making an unsupported claim, it seems like it's off to some new discussion.

No, I was responding to John Cuthber.  I even quoted him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tar said:

More sensible trade deals.

You mean fuck over countries more,  that are already getting fucked over by American protectionism and US subsidies.

No water, no hydro power, no oil, no wood for you. Now. let's negotiate. What are you gonna do, just take it? American cannot even secure the smallest country in the world (Iraq), you think for a minute they'll take Canada?

Bring your pile of guns. I have one gun and only need one bullet, then I'll have a pile of guns.

Edited by rangerx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You mean fuck over countries more,  that are already getting fucked over by American protectionism and US subsidies.

He refused to specific what he wanted done so no one here can really say what he meant. 

In the simplest terms middle ground can be described as mid field between two end zones. By refusing to specify what policies he does or does support tar won't reveal the location of his end zone. It is unfortunate. Waitforufo is doing the same. Answering specific policy questions with broad rhetoric about the wonders of trickle down economics is a nonstarter as trickle down is an economic theory and not a specific set of laws or policies. I find it extremely intellectual cowardly to dance around specifics at a time when Congress is hammer out the specifics: tax cut bills, next year's budget, another go at the ACA mandate repeal, etc. How can middle ground even be pursued with people refusing to even address what is happening?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tar said:

Right.  is my point.  The leader of the free world, happened to have enjoyed, as a millionaire, the favors of ladies, in his many encounters with such.  Such ladies often got something for their favors.  It does not make Trump the devil.  There is, in the apt mind, the ability to hold two contradictory ideas.   To denounce a person's treatment of women, while lauding their ability to command the discussion for two years with tweets.

Sexual assault is NOT enjoying "the favors of ladies"

2 hours ago, tar said:

Trump remains the most powerful person in the world.  This is higher status than you or I have achieved.  He must have some capability to rise to this position.  

He's a skilled con artist. The people he cons often don't think they've been conned.

2 hours ago, tar said:

Since he is a millionaire himself, I doubt he was bought, and I don't think he is subject to the pressures that Wellington group or the Koch brothers might bring to bear.   He is an actual strong leader, with good ideas and speaks the truth, rather than playing identity politics.  He gets things done, and takes decisive action.

He does not speak the truth, and it is disingenuous to claim this. This has been addressed before. As has the assertion that he's a strong leader. If you are going to claim this, you need to back it up. As with any debate about his alleged "good ideas"

2 hours ago, tar said:

I think part of the problem, since the election is grief.

Hilary was on her way to be the first woman president, and when she lost, the hopes and dreams of millions were dashed.

I recently lost my dad, and looked up again the five stages of grief.  I knew them from before, as I looked them up when I was getting laid off my job, as everybody else was too, and I recognized the stages of grief being run through by myself and the people around me.    One of the stages is denial, and I think a large part of our country has been in this stage since the election.

If you were a Hillary supporter, look up the five stages of grief and reflect a moment upon which stage you are in.   One day you will arrive at acceptance, but judging by this thread, I would guess it is not imminent. 

No, I disagree. Trump is an abomination as a president, which ha nothing to do with viewing it through this particular lens. He is an authoritarian (which is not a compliment) and has ignored historical presidential norms. He has surrounded himself with others who have disdain for the jobs they are supposed to be doing, and there is rampant corruption, which should be obvious to the casual observer.

2 hours ago, tar said:

 just noticed I dropped another 3 rep points

no idea why what I am saying is at all wrong or evil

I think that's part of the problem

2 hours ago, tar said:

 Sorry to challenge your narrative, but it needs challenging, and the real world needs to be lived in.  You need me and I need you.  The middle ground needs to be inhabited.

You first, since you have a greater distance to travel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tar said:

The thought is, as in trickle down, that if employers have more money to spend,

Sweet Jesus! Is someone really still citing "trickle down" as a real model, rather than an example of a political lie. And yet, yes, you are seriously putting it forward- even though it's been established to be a lie.

 

 

4 hours ago, tar said:

Perhaps if we put a 20% tariff on goods coming in from Mexico, we can pay for the wall.

Or maybe not.
If Mexico sells beans and you add 20% to the cost when they cross the border and then they sell for 20% more in the USA where US citizens buy them; who pays for the wall?

Why would you want to do that?
In any event it's good to see that you realise Mexico's not going to pay for it.

4 hours ago, tar said:

A structure that allows people to buy as little or as much coverage as they desire

Presumably these people only get the healthcare problems they desire too- otherwise the system doesn't work (spoiler alert- we can see it not working today in a country that pays roughly twice as much for healthcare with generally equal or worse outcomes).

3 hours ago, waitforufo said:

No, I was responding to John Cuthber.  I even quoted him.

You quoted me, and then posted this nonsense

"Perhaps you are too young or have forgotten just how bad stagflation was under Jimmy Carter."

Well, stagflation started well before Carter was in power so, even when you try to cover up the fact that you don't know what you are talking about, you just show that... you don't know what you are talking about.

3 hours ago, tar said:

Trump remains the most powerful person in the world.  This is higher status than you or I have achieved.  He must have some capability to rise to this position.

The "capability" he has was a rich dad and the benefits that come from that.

It's not something he worked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

He has surrounded himself with others who have disdain for the jobs they are supposed to be doing, and there is rampant corruption, which should be obvious to the casual observer.

This is classic Republican strategy. If the EPA makes your businesses jump through hoops just to protect citizens, put someone in there who will mess it up good. Same with Education, same with FEMA (remember Katrina?), same with all the watchdog agencies that are there to protect us against just such people and tactics.

I've worked with facilities that manufacture medical diagnostic equipment. All of them have to meet an enormous amount of regulations to satisfy FDA that their products meet federal requirements. And while all of them bitch about it, I never heard a single one of them say that NOT doing it would be better. It would be less work for them, but they all seemed to understand that their products are successful BECAUSE they're held to such high standards. In fact, in some areas like disposables, they worked to exceed the federal requirements just so they could brag about it. The villianaires that are trying to hobble our government aren't interested in fairness, they're interested in more profit.

I hate this strategy even more than when Bush II implemented because it also weakens us in EXACTLY the way Putin/Russia benefits most from, which I'm sure is just coincidence. The conservative fears going around the world are aiding the Russians in keeping allies apart and isolating strong countries like the US and Germany. We're in trouble, and Trump is giving away or spoiling most of our best relationships while he pits his base against the rest of the citizenry IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. He's the greatest American Russia has ever produced, or he's doing a top-shelf imitation of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is classic Republican strategy. If the EPA makes your businesses jump through hoops just to protect citizens, put someone in there who will mess it up good.

Who created the EPA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Who created the EPA?

Why on Earth would that matter to a damaging strategy that's obviously been developed afterward, Man of Straw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why on Earth would that matter to a damaging strategy that's obviously been developed afterward, Man of Straw?

Come on, it's not that hard to figure out, all you have to do is Google "Who created the EPA?"  This is a topic about the truth isn't it?

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is classic Republican strategy. If the EPA makes your businesses jump through hoops just to protect citizens, put someone in there who will mess it up good.

It matters because you are slandering Republicans with your post that begins with the above.  

So again, who created the EPA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Who created the EPA?

Irrelevant. The actions of today's GOP are very different than the GOP of Nixon/Ford or even Reagan and Bush I.

4 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Come on, it's not that hard to figure out, all you have to do is Google "Who created the EPA?"  This is a topic about the truth isn't it?

It matters because you are slandering Republicans with your post that begins with the above.  

So again, who created the EPA?

Yes, it's about truth. So how about being truthful? (and that includes the "lies of omission" category)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

Irrelevant. The actions of today's GOP are very different than the GOP of Nixon/Ford or even Reagan and Bush I.

Come on, is it really that hard to acknowledge the person and his party who gave us cleaner air and water and the health and environmental benefits that we all enjoy as a result of the creation of the EPA?  I think that matters very much.  Also I think it would show intellectual and political honesty on your part.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Come on, is it really that hard to acknowledge the person and his party who gave us cleaner air and water and the health and environmental benefits that we all enjoy as a result of the creation of the EPA?  I think that matters very much.  Also I think it would show intellectual and political honesty on your part.  

I mentioned Nixon, so don't pretend I didn't, and I still maintain it's irrelevant, because the modern GOP does not represent the same set of values as it did a generation or so ago (much less what parties represented ~150 years ago). This is just your usual deflection of the conversation away from what's being discussed. Don't lecture me on intellectual honesty when you are exhibiting none yourself.

 

The modern GOP has wanted to weaken or dismantle the EPA for the last ~20 years, and thinks climate change is a hoax. That is not consistent with the position of the presidents I mentioned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Come on, it's not that hard to figure out, all you have to do is Google "Who created the EPA?"  This is a topic about the truth isn't it?

It matters because you are slandering Republicans with your post that begins with the above.  

So again, who created the EPA?

The U.S. create Nuclear Weapons yet still actively pursue disarmament amongst nuclear powers and actively work to prevent countries from having nuclear weapons. A nation or party creating something 60yrs ago and being that things best advocate today isn't automatic. John F. Kennedy said "a raising tide lifts all boats" when selling tax cuts. A line Republicans use today. Since Kennedy was a Democrat does that mean Democrats are the party of tax cuts in 2017? You are strip issues and history of all context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Come on, is it really that hard to acknowledge the person and his party who gave us cleaner air and water and the health and environmental benefits that we all enjoy as a result of the creation of the EPA?  I think that matters very much.  Also I think it would show intellectual and political honesty on your part.  

I can acknowledge Eisenhower's Republican vision of the US as one of the best all-around strategies for building up the overall prosperity of a nation. Does that really mean I'm disparaging him and all Republicans by vilifying a current Republican practice? Come on, is it really that hard to accept that times have changed, and that a LOT of current GOP leadership is as far away from the Republican stances of the 70s EPA as you can get?

What's different? 60 years of increasing amounts of villianaires, for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2017 at 4:34 PM, Ten oz said:

What about the 2nd part; how do we find middle ground?

It seems to me that the 2 major parties are far part as they have been in sometime. Culture warfare has replace legitimate policy disputes. it is John F. Kennedy who coined "a rising tide lifts all boats" is championing tax cuts. There use to be a lot of overlap betweens parties and a lot of things everyone agreed on. Everyone had the same truth. Today parties are defined by different truths. By today's strandards Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were all Democrats:

Eisenhower - Pro NATO, Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was billions in govt infastructure spending, supported the Civil Rights Act of 57' & 60', placed National Guard members unnder federal control to enforce Brown vsthe board of education, made Earl Warren the Chief Justice of the supreme court, made HI a state, and coined "military industrial complex".

Nixon - Pro China, sought Vietnam withdraw, created the EPA, supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, supported the Philadelphia plan (affirmitive action),  and expanded medicare in 72'.

Ford - endoresedan Amnesty program for those who had refuse to fight in Vietnam, WIN program sought tax increases to combat inflation, signed the Education For All Handicapped Children Act, and was openly pro choice.

Bush 43 - Raised taxes, endorsed the Americans with Disabilities Act, reauthorized the Clean Air Act, increased legal immigration by 40%, resigned his NRA membership, pro NATO, and signed the Strategic Arms Reduction, Treaty.

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Come on, is it really that hard to acknowledge the person and his party who gave us cleaner air and water and the health and environmental benefits that we all enjoy as a result of the creation of the EPA?  I think that matters very much.  Also I think it would show intellectual and political honesty on your part.  

My above post is from the first page of this thread! The FACT that Nixon created the EPA has was already acknowledge. I gave you a new rep for pretending otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the industrial lobbying is not only targeting Republicans. The lobbyist have been very successful in demonizing the EPA which resulted in their decline since the 80s and budget cuts have also been enacted by democrats (though not in the same celebratory manner) . However, the current administration is not only doing budget cuts, but is essentially trying to systematically dismantle the agency by putting anti-EPA persons into strategic positions and firing folks that provide crucial environmental information.

By undercutting science they try to control the flow of information. It is probably going to work until they realize that the resulting health issues are going to be far more expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

The U.S. create Nuclear Weapons yet still actively pursue disarmament amongst nuclear powers and actively work to prevent countries from having nuclear weapons. A nation or party creating something 60yrs ago and being that things best advocate today isn't automatic. John F. Kennedy said "a raising tide lifts all boats" when selling tax cuts. A line Republicans use today. Since Kennedy was a Democrat does that mean Democrats are the party of tax cuts in 2017? You are strip issues and history of all context. 

i"m happy to give Kennedy credit for proposing tax cuts and understanding how taxes are a drag on economic growth.  Republicans agree with him and will be happy to give him credit for tax cuts today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The FACT that Nixon created the EPA has was already acknowledge.  

So a Republican created the EPA....  I fail to see the relevance of who created it 60 years ago when it is being treated with such disrespect now. I've missed a point somewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

i"m happy to give Kennedy credit for proposing tax cuts and understanding how taxes are a drag on economic growth.  Republicans agree with him and will be happy to give him credit for tax cuts today.

I am happy to credit Lincoln with abolishing slavery although today Republicans are the party of choice for white supremacists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, swansont said:

I mentioned Nixon, so don't pretend I didn't, and I still maintain it's irrelevant, because the modern GOP does not represent the same set of values as it did a generation or so ago (much less what parties represented ~150 years ago). This is just your usual deflection of the conversation away from what's being discussed. Don't lecture me on intellectual honesty when you are exhibiting none yourself.

I didn't ask you to mention Nixon. I asked you who created the EPA.  Had you said Richard Nixon, I would have went away.

With regard to the middle ground, you find that by acknowledging the accomplishments of your political opponents.  

Richard Nixon became president in 1968.  That was not 60 years ago.  60 years past is not ancient history.  Either is 150 years for that matter. The things a political party did 150, 60, or 40 years ago have lasting impact.  They own their history and are responsible for it.  Quit pretending otherwise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.