By Dave Johnson of the Institute for America’s Future:
Anyone care to dispute these claims? (If you click the link, they’re eached backed up by further links to various newspaper articles, etc.)
And if he’s right, why do people believe these things?
It’s a free country, and I’ll believe that ever I want. Who are you to tell me what’s true?
Interesting that you left off the part about Obama’s citizenship and religion.
Are you surprised that voters are stupid?
Just to back you up before the supply siders chime in: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/record-unemployment-companies-hoard-1-trillion-cash/
Can someone explain to me how giving these companies tax cuts will cause them to hire people? They’re already hoarding money. Why would giving them more make any difference?
And yes, I know that Rawstory is a liberal rag, but this is a Reuters story quoting Moody’s.
Why else? because they hear it over and over again from media outlets, talking heads, and their friends and family who heard it from the talking heads.
We badly need something that mandates a separation of news/ factual information and opinion.
Good example: CNN was running a story about about a female protestor who was assaulted by the other side. They ran it as “getting stomped in the head”. When they showed the video, it was obvious to anyone with eyes that the assailant actually pressed down with his foot on the victim’s back, between her shoulders. He didn’t “stomp on her head”. That’s how those memes get started though.
Look at it at around 13 or 14 seconds in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZxvYdYOqWQ
He stomps his heel down on her lower head or, even worse, her neck. And yes, I have eyes.
[Don Rickles]What, that’s better?[/Don Rickles]
I heard she assaulted his shoe with her head, and is being asked to give an apology. And anyway, she deserved it. And the guy had a bad back - so he had to use his foot instead of his fist. And she had a scary sign. And it depends on what the definition of “stomp” is.
ummm no. He steps with the ball of his foot on her trapezius area. Watch close. When the guy holding her by the shoulder moves his hand, the foot comes into the area between the shoulder and neck. That is why she folds down and pops right back up again. His heel impacting the back of her head is incidental. His foot is turned down and in slightly. I’m not condoning that behaviour at all by the way, it’s reprehensible, but it was made out in the news like he gave her a curby.
A black Muslim who wasn’t even born here somehow got elected President thanks to widespread voter fraud!
Pardon me - but if you are spouting talking points, you ought to be open to talking about them in detail.
Regarding Social Security - the aforementioned trust fund is in the form of government bonds. Previous Congresses took the surplus money and spent it on current government operating expenditures, giving the Social Security System a special bond it kept in a filing cabinet somewhere.
When Social Security no longer runs surpluses (which will happen permanently in 2015), the Treasury no longer gets that little kick of extra revenue. When Social Security payouts start to run higher than payroll tax collections, those bonds will be cashed in - and the Treasury will take money from the General Fund to pay them off.
And the fact that Social Security is completely sound for at least 25 more years isn’t exactly comforting for most voters, who know that for Social Security to be made sound for the long term massive changes need to be made in the program.
I’m 40. Do you think I’m comforted when I hear that Social Security is sound for another 25 years?
Oh fer Og’s sake. I know bloody well what a stomp is, and that not only what happened does not fit the definition, it is an inflammatory bit of slang used to grab attention. If he had stomped her in the head he would have used a strong, hard, downward kick directly to the head, and probably would have severely wounded her. She got up without any scrapes to her face or head at all and gave an interview. That guy is a total ass, and completely out of line but he didn’t stomp her on the head.
As for #8 - who doesn’t think government builds roads and airports? I grew up listening to jokes about PennDOT - I think this is a shared thing in our country, if not universal.
Oh, well if the impact was only “incidental” then I guess it wasn’t really an impact. I guess it all depends on what the definition of [del]“is”[/del] “impact” is.
And this is typical. BrainGlutton has an OP listing 8 major policy issues that ought to be debated in this election, and most of the responses are about whether an idiot Kentuckian stomped on a political opponent. Or maybe people are just illustrating why people believe stupid stuff, because they get distracted by even more stupid – and trivial, except for the direct participants – stuff.
But the trouble is that it’s much easier to understand what is going on when people are fighting and stomping on each other, than whether the stimulus was too much, too little or just right. However, the stimulus is important for the economic well-being of the US, while that brawl in Kentucky is not.
Listen, lightly clipping someone’s head with the back of your heel as the foot passes by does not equate to “stomp”. Her head barely moves when it does. The motion goes: Foot moves forward, toe presses into trap area, presses down, heel clips the back of the head lightly, while all the pressure is concentrated on the trap area. Foot is removed. If he had actually stepped on her head, she would have been seriously hurt. There is no question about definitions here at all. It is case of exaggeration for the sake of grabbing attention, nothing more. They could have just as easily ran the story as :“Protester is assaulted and stepped on at rally!” and it would have been both accurate and attention getting. They went with “Protester is stomped in head!!!OMGWTFBBQELEVENTY!!” Conjuring images of American History X instead.
Agreed, and I’m sorry I ever made the example, though it does serve nicely to illustrate the observational capabilities of other people.
Well, the point of the thread isn’t actually to debate each concept.
So you picked the point about Social Security, and have a reasonably valid point. The issue at hand is consider how many voters actually understand your point, versus how many are just regurgitating what a talking head told them on a station that appeals to their bias.
A lot of people believe in evolution, but very few of them understand it.
That’s because we know that, like it or not, things like that brawl in Kentucky are often what decide elections.
Seriously though, it upsets people when they see someone apparently trying to defend that kind of behavior. I think now that that may not have been what Acid Lamp was trying to do, but it did come off that way.
I’ll admit that I did join in the pile on about the brawl, but I did also try to discuss the issues BrainGlutton posted, as you can see in the third post.
Agree with all of the points of the OP.
At first glance I thought he’d shoehorned in a misleading statement when he said “welfare … is only a small part of the government’s budget”. But I see that in America, that statement is actually true.
From my comfortable european sofa (paid for by the socialist death panels that exist here), virtually none of the attacks on obama seem to have any traction at all.
The only errors in my view are:
- Trying to reach out to the GOP in the early days
- Slight indecisiveness, e.g. over the surge
- OTT blasting of BP (which may be a factor in why big business is wary of this administration). Though this was a result of constant pressure on him to seem more angry.
In all three cases they are understandable mistakes, they are things that probably I would have done too.
Does anyone thnk this election is about anything other than the fact that the economy sucketh? If the economy was fuiring on all pistons we would have gotten REAL health care reform and the repeal of DADT. As it stands, we have crappy health care reform (but its a start) and a little footdragging on the appeal of DADT.