Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 657 Comments
@Tom:
No, I understand paranoia, fear and mistrust pretty well. It's a fairly common mental state for all humans at one time or another, myself included. Nothing wrong or unusual with that.
But just as a suggestion, when you propose your ASSUMPTIONS, flippantly calling them FACTS makes you sound like a loon. There are only a couple of possibilities that justify such a use of the word "fact":
a) You have no idea what you type, or suffer from some form of mental impairment. Your follow-up tends to suggest that is not the case, since you demonstrate a consistency of thought and action, and if you didn't mean what you said when you came back I presume you would have written somehting along the lines of "what the hell is this?"
b) You honestly can't tell the difference between the words "fact" and "assumption". Your word choice and sentence structure imply you are at least minimally competent in the English language (personally I'd guess you are quite proficient), so the thought that you actually don't know the difference between the two words is, frankly, difficult for me to believe.
c) You know full well what the difference between "fact" and "assumption", and you intentionally (either subconciously or conciously) used the more authorative term (fact) to bolster a conclusion that you knew was little more than a guess. Even better, you did it with a dismissive tone, hinting that anybody that didn't "know" this "fact" was an embarassment as a citizen and a human.
It's a dishonest technique . . . and a deliberate, intentional one.
Let me be clear -- you may well be right. The poll may well be a complete fabrication. I certainly find the results shocking enough that I am suspicious (but then again, I'm a pretty suspicious guy). You are fully entitled to your opinions. There is nothing wrong with that.
But if people with different opinions declare that what they think is a FACT, any sort of debate or discussion is impossible. It is beyond easy to get swept up in the passion of the moment, and to unintentionally state things stronger than they deserve. But its also what liars do . . . and I cannot tolerate liars. You seem like you have things to say, things I would like to hear. I may not agree with what you say, but I certainly enjoying hearing things I disagree with. Hell, maybe I'll even learn something (stranger things have happened).
But false discussion . . . well, there's plenty of whack-a-doodles wasting bandwith already.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.02.2010 @ 02:03
@Tom:
"Fact (do some research): . . . and he commissioned the poll to support his position."
Wow. I am impressed. You mean your factual research uncovered some evidence where the poll was deliberately intended to skew findings? The pollsters admit the poll was fraudulent? Kos signed a "I will pay you but only if you doctor the poll" contract? Eyewitensses? Really? I'm both shocked that they would be so sloppy in committing such large scale fraud, and I'm also impressed that you (and only you) found this "factual" evidence. Well done.
Care to share? No, of course not. I know if I had proof of a conspiracy I'd certainly snidely tell people to "find it themselves". I'd certainly not provide the evidence so other people could be convinced.
Or you are completely full of crap. One or the other. Must be the "brilliant investigative reporting coupled with an intense desire to not offer any proof on philosophical grounds" option. Otherwise, you not only are embarassing yourself . . . you're kind of making Rick's point for him. Ironically, at the exact time you are loudly declaring how wrong he is, you are loudly demonstrating that he appears to be dead-on accurate on this one.
Yeah . . . definitely the brilliant reporter one. Congrats.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.02.2010 @ 00:05
@manning:
"First, you do not know that he is “fully cooperating!”"
And you don't know that he isn't. Taking Obama out of the equation . . . would you assume a giant conspiracy amongst the government and authorities when they say "the suspect is in custody and talking to authorities" if you heard that sentence from ANY OTHER administration but this one?
"Under the rather obvious and now quite apparent idea that Obama says one thing and does the reverse, when he said that he didn’t want to run banks or auto makers, it must mean that he does—and now is, with a czar or two to do the real lifting."
So if Obama says "I am not a Socialist" . . . that's actually proof that he IS a socialist. The only way Obama could decalre that he in not a socialist would be to say "I am a Socialist".
???
"Mr. Bottoms is loosing it!"Well, somebody sure is. Must be Mr. Bottoms, who obviously cant recognize the devil-horns on Obama's head, or smell the faint scent of christian baby's blood on his breath.
Yeah . . . it's Mr. Bottoms who's talking crazy.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.02.2010 @ 23:55
"I could think of half dozen more questions that I have absolutely no doubt would reveal a large - perhaps as large as the percentage of Republicans who believe loony stuff - who would answer “yes” or “not sure” to those questions."
I think you'd be suprised Rick . . . but only because of how you've phrased the questions. For example:
"Did he [Bush] want black people to die after Katrina?"
Most liberals I know would answer "no". He didn't sit in the Oval Office, rubbing his hands like Blofeld and muttering "how can I kill more Negroes? What's that you say Cheney? More Negros have been killed? Excellent!" I'm sure there are truly some nutters out there that believe that, but even Bush haters aren't going to go to that ridiculous extreme.
But if you re-phrase the question to:"Would the Federal government's response to Katrina have been different if the televised victims were white and affluent?"
Then I think most liberals would answer "yes". Actively cheering for racial genocide is a damn sight different than not being too concerned about their plight.
Went to war "for" oil? Probably not. Went to war for the sole purpose of protecting the US from Hussein and WMDs? Probably not. "Majority" of Republicans racist? Probably not 50.001%, no. An uncomfortably large number? Maybe so. Most people won't agree with a position phrased in such an extreme manner, even if they do agree with some aspect of the question.
What's terrifying about the poll you cited is that the questions ARE phrased in the extreme language . . . and respondents jumped at the bait anyways. Obama is "a racist who hates white people"? Hell I know racists that dislike Obama who wouldn't go that far.
Both sides have their loons . . . and both sides have people that silently agree with the loons but won't stand out with them. These numbers are showing the loon contingent for the Reds is terrifyingly large, and that implies that the numbers that actually agree with these positions is probably even larger.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.02.2010 @ 14:44
@lionheart:
"Controlling behavior via creating avenues of opportunity are completely different than controlling behavior via threat or compulsion."
Leaving out the emotionally-laden terms . . . how so? Both tax breaks and tax hikes incentivise one course of behavior over the other by making one option more expensive, but the individual is still free to make their choice and pay either way.
I don't see a prohibitive tax as "threat or compulsion" any more than I see a reductive tax as a "bribe". There is a prohibitive tax on smoking. Nobody has threatened me to quit smoking ("it would be a shame if you had an . . . accident . . . getting your smokes" or compelled me ("do it! Dammit, I said DO IT!!"). If I want to keep smoking, and I'm willing to spend the extra cash, then I'm all set. Conversely, If I'd rather soend the extra cash by renting all my life rather than build equity in a stabe home, then I can do that as well.
@Rick:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.01.2010 @ 16:43
I'll certainly agree that taxes, in the philosophical sense, should not be used for anything other than revenue generation. But as a practical matter whatever involves money impacts behavior -- right and wrong be dammed. Given that the tax code WILL modify human behavior (intended or not), should that impact be ignored or addressed? Simply saying "it shouldn't" is a nice sentiment, but a bit naive. You raise a serious problem, then leave it with a simplistic "well, that's a bad thing". Yes. Yes it is. So what do you suggest?
NEW BANKING REGS A BOON FOR MAIN STREET
@brooks:
Sure, its simple ecconomics --
Utterly unregulated capitalism = good
Any limits or control over the market = badSee? Simple as pie. Not practical. Or viable. And guaranteed to end in a metaphorical mushroom cloud as history endlessly proves time and time again . . . but its simple. You can't deny that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.01.2010 @ 17:05
DOES A BROWN VICTORY POSE A DANGER FOR THE GOP?
I'm not sure what breaking up the filibuster-proof majority accomplishes.
The Blues didn't seem to be able to accomplish anything WITH a fil-proof majority. What -- are they going to accomplish LESS than nothing now? Sure this makes HCR more unlikely, but it was pretty rocky at 60 Dems too for some inexplicable reason.
Trying to paint a positive spin on Brown wining for a liberal, now the Dems can blame their incompetence on Brown, rather than own up to the fact that they are pathetically spineless. "Oh, we were sooooo totally going to pass great HCR. Darn! We were really going to."
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.01.2010 @ 13:55
SUPPORTING SCOTT BROWN: PRAGMATISM OR PRINCIPLE?
Now you're deleting comments Rick?
The classy train just keeps chugging along.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.01.2010 @ 12:28
I'd also like to ask for some more information about the 1-3% voter fraud study. I find the allegation stunning and quite frankly uncredible without something more staunch to back it up that "a study from before".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.01.2010 @ 17:44
SCOTT BROWN BITES THE HEADS OFF LITTLE CHILDREN AND DRINKS THEIR BLOOD
"That is beyond lying and the fact that you can’t see that only proves my initial point." (ed. comment to #17)
As your latest favorite phrase goes, reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit. Not too sure what "beyond" lying is (aside from emotional claptrap), but the ad is false. It is wrong. It is bad. I've said nothing else about the ad. I CAN in fact see that. Demonstrably. Know how you can tell? Read the comments.
"The difference between you and me is that I call out my side for their sins while you ignore the ones - or try to excuse them - on your side"
Try to excuse them?
--"Attack ad is horrendous and repugnant." (#2)
--". . . politicians lie and lie more outrageously the closer they get to election . . ." (#2)
--"transparently misleading campaign ads" (#17)
--"Who in the comments has said that the attack ad is acceptable or justified" (#21, which was up before you decided to post these comments)
--"offensive" (#21)
--"lying and attack ads are bad" (#21)
--"Haven’t seen a liberal in these comments defend or excuse the Dems for this ad" (#21). . . so that ads up to "ignoring or excusing sins"? Wow. You really have gone 100% into the revisionist history camp. All the more impressive since these comments are on the SAME PAGE you wrote the exact opposite. That's a special kind of ignorant right there.
The whipped topping on this nutty sundae is explaining that you call out your side and accusing me of not doing so -- in response to me calling out my side and asking you to do so yourself. "I did before" is truly impressive. I guess I don't have to condemn this ad either -- I criticized the Dems 3 months ago, so I'm good, right?
Its your page, its your god-complex . . . rant away. But this is either blatant ignorance, insanity, a tantrum (my guess) or lying (perhaps even the awesome "beyond" lying). If you don't care what that looks like, don't worry. If you do, this isn't a feather in your intellectual cap.
Since my critical comments seem to be mysteriously disappearing from your page again, I'm assuming this won't be up for anybody to see except you. If you DO bother to read this -- get your head back on straight. This is unbecoming of you.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.01.2010 @ 13:00
