# Sam Stone - in your humble opinion **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 9, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827 "2009-03-09T13:20:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/81 "2009-03-10T13:59:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This is all quite familiar, as **Mr. Svinlesha** said in the other current Sam Stone pit thread. Sam has been a font of misinformation and lies since the run up to the Iraq War and the 2004 elections. There was a NASA funding claim he once made that had me chasing figures once, as I recall. Oh, you don’t want to bring up the NASA funding thing again, or I’ll have to link to the actual thread and make you look foolish. > [@](#): > > I suspect that what happened is he got his unemployment averages from some rightarded web site and brought them here without checking them himself. (I has already tried many ways to get 6.3% out of his numbers without success even before his second attempt to get it right.) Oh yes, because the ‘rightarded’ web sites are just a-buzz with efforts to make Clinton’s unemployment look like 6.3%. Give it a rest, already. I made a silly math error that didn’t even change the point I was making. > [@](#): > > Despite the fact that in his other OP, he made claims about Sarah Palin that even he now acknowledges weren’t supported by facts, and tried a december-like feint with his lie about Obama quotes, and here his fictional numbers about Clinton’s unemployment figures, this will not change at all the number of people claiming that Sam Stone is an intelligent and rational debator who is an asset to the board. Oh for God’s sake. I quoted another web site in that OP, and when someone posted contrary facts, I withdrew the claim. Oh, the horror. The ‘lie’ about Obama quotes was a rhetorical device, and I identified the quotes _in the same message_. It may not have been a _good_ rhetorical device, but it wasn’t a ‘lie’, as any reasonable poster would see (i.e. someone other than you). ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/82 "2009-03-10T14:09:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Just shoot me now. Sorry about that. I used the data from 1992 to 2000. So let’s use the corrected data, and say that Clinton and Bush had about the same level of unemployment. Oh, please… :rolleyes: Clinton took in a high unemployment rate when he was sworn in and nearly halved it during 8 years. Bush took that low unemployment rate and nearly doubled it in another 8 years. Yes, on average they scored the same, but Clinton started low and got high and W started high and plummeted; implying that they had equivalent performances is absolutely disingenious. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/83 "2009-03-10T14:21:26Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Oh, please… :rolleyes: > > Clinton took in a high unemployment rate when he was sworn in and nearly halved it during 8 years. Bush took that low unemployment rate and nearly doubled it in another 8 years. > Yes, on average they scored the same, but Clinton started low and got high and W started high and plummeted; implying that they had equivalent performances is absolutely disingenious. And Bush left us with a world economic crisis that is causing massive job losses world-wide. It’s impossible to debate with Sam honestly because he’s just trolling for his ‘side’ and is quite happy with any form of deception so long as his side ‘wins’. Like Shodan too. Bricker is the only conservative with even a half honest approach. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/84 "2009-03-10T15:01:12Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > **Sam** is a reasonably well-informed poster and as an endangered species on this board (intelligent conservative) … As opposed to an entirely extinct species, the intelligent honest liberal. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/85 "2009-03-10T15:02:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its like this, **Sam**. You go looking for cites, we go looking for facts. Unfortunately, you guys continually confuse your own opinions for objective facts–even the Warren Zevon fans. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/86 "2009-03-10T15:44:59Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Oh, you don’t want to bring up the NASA funding thing again, or I’ll have to link to the actual thread and make you look foolish. Let’s do. I’d just love for you to take me to the woodshed again like you have in this thread. (I actually came across it all again last night while doing some searches prompted by your posts here. I’m very happy to review it again for everyone else’s entertainment.) > [@](#): > > Oh yes, because the ‘rightarded’ web sites are just a-buzz with efforts to make Clinton’s unemployment look like 6.3%. Give it a rest, already. I made a silly math error that didn’t even change the point I was making. A 1.1% change in unemployment makes a fairly big difference (and also makes it look like Clinton had done worse than Bush. Setting aside, of course, the difference in trend that **Ale** cogently pointed out later.) The sad part is that Obama is going to get tagged with Bush’s leavings, which is now up to 8.1% and is predicted to top 9.4% over the year. And apparently, you made a couple of “silly” math errors, since your second effort was as wrong as your first. By the way, if you google “Bush Clinton unemployment rates” about all you will find are righties trying to make the argument that Bush’s unemployment numbers were better than Clinton’s. > [@](#): > > Oh for God’s sake. I quoted another web site in that OP, and when someone posted contrary facts, I withdrew the claim. Oh, the horror. The ‘lie’ about Obama quotes was a rhetorical device, and I identified the quotes _in the same message_. It may not have been a _good_ rhetorical device, but it wasn’t a ‘lie’, as any reasonable poster would see (i.e. someone other than you). Actually, someone other than me already called you a fucking liar in that very thread. Unless of course you are accusing me of being or using a sock. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/87 "2009-03-10T15:46:10Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Thanks, brother… for your kind words, and for sparing me the embarrasment of naming me directly. Now who’s ready for Kool-Aid? In your dreams! “Liberal leaning”, “truly open minded”, “where the facts lead”,…clearly all in reference to myself! A surly Trotskyist splinterer like you? It is to laugh. And mine is tequila and bongwater. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/88 "2009-03-10T15:59:40Z")
Oooh! Oooh! Can we do the “trees pollute more than people do” bit again too? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/89 "2009-03-10T16:43:27Z")
Geez, poor **Sam**! Gets in trouble,\*\* Rand \*\*and \*\*Lonesome _come rushing to his aid! Life really isn’t_ fair, sometimes… ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/90 "2009-03-10T16:46:46Z")
> [@Mr.Svinlesha](#): > > Oooh! Oooh! Can we do the “trees pollute more than people do” bit again too? I smell a Greatest Hits album in the works! Sammy Sings! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/91 "2009-03-10T16:56:51Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It’s a little misleading using percentages like that. There’s no doubt the prison system has gotten a lot more expensive, but according to your own cite part of the reason is that Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guards union members a 30% raise. Even so, the increase in costs of the prison system amount to 4.1 billion dollars, which isn’t even 5% of the budget. According to the [California Budget Summary](http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf), corrections in total is about 7% of the budget. The charts on your cite only shows the differences in increases over the last few years, not the total amounts of spending. The fact is, California’s budget has been severely fiscally imbalanced for a long, long time. Hell Gray Davis was recalled because the budget was out of whack, by a guy who promised to clean it all up - and then went on to make the problem worse. the first cite I posted gave increases over a 20 year period - so this is not an issue over the past few years. My discussion of the prisons were to demonstrate that the problem with the California budget is not “liberal” spending. Liberals were not behind 3 strikes. Whether it is a good idea or not, it is an expensive one - and with a better prison situation, I suspect the guards would have less clout. The purpose of the article was to show that the problem on the spending side did not lay with a state legislature out of control, but with the people of California passing expensive initiatives without having to worry about the consequences. What we have in California is the right yelling that the Democrats in the legislature are awful, and then take away a lot of their authority with the initiative system (which started as a socialist thing, by the way) and proves that the people do a worse job than elected officials do. The cause of the crisis, by the way, was not a big increase in spending, but a big decrease in tax revenue thanks to the recession. Unemployment here is above the national average. The reason we became a laughing stock (and rightfully so) is that the Republican legislators, with their no tax vow, were unwilling to compromise either with the Dems of the governor of their own party. If prison costs were 5% of the budget, it would be no big deal. An increase of under 5% is a big deal. You’ll notice in your link a reference to Prop 98 costs. That is a set amount of the budget guaranteed for education. That is from yet another initiative. This is a liberal one, but the reason it got passed was education getting ripped off thanks to Prop. 13. When Davis was governor, there was strong, strong support for restoring the cuts made in education after Prop 13. People wanted that, but didn’t want to pay for it. To a certain extent the problem comes from the fact that relative funding per district was frozen when the state took over education, and hasn’t changed even when the demographics changed. My district, which was more rural back then, gets ripped off relative to a district up the road. This imbalance means that there will be a large number of people dissatisfied no matter what the funding level is. Another item in the Mercury News story was the money to make up the cut in vehicle license fees. Cutting that is something Ahnold ran on. The reason it shows up here, and not as a decrease in revenue, is that the money went to localities, and had to be made up from general funds. This was something the governor could fix with a stroke of the pen, and which would improve the budget picture a lot. So you can’t blame this one on liberals either. The point of all this is that you responded, out of nowhere, how the liberals screwed up California, which shows either a lack of understanding of our situation or a willingness to ignore the complexities of the problem for a kneejerk statement. I thought I was being charitable - there is no reason you should be an expert on the California budget. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/92 "2009-03-10T18:53:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Ideologically and partisanly driven, and with only inadvertent connection with the real world, that is. So you consider yourself open-minded, independent and down-to-earth? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/93 "2009-03-10T19:07:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Geez, poor **Sam**! Gets in trouble,\*\* Rand \*\*and \*\*Lonesome \*\*come rushing to his aid! I haven’t felt this inspired since I saw _Birth of a Nation_! ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/94 "2009-03-10T19:10:14Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > We can start a thread about it, if you’d like. Well, this thread seemed to be about you making stuff up, so it seemed like the right place.. > [@](#): > > Obama says he’s going to bring the deficit down to 533 billion, but his budget is a load of hooey. His claims for economic growth are higher than anyone else’s, he assumes revenue that’s going to be very hard to achieve (for example, his revenue from cap and trade, which is going to be very difficult to pass), he assumes that growth will not be affected by new taxes, and on the spending side he’s got ‘reductions’ that are mere placeholders for unspecified improvements in waste, fraud and abuse, which are generally illusory. > > I can go into details if you’d like, but I have to go to work now. Actually, new taxes frequently help growth (for the same reason raising interest rates do), and I have no idea why you think the reductions from waste, fraud, and abuse are illusory. We successfully addressed this under Clinton’s Reinventing Government initiative in the 1990s, and there’s no reason to believe there’s less opportunity now for efficiency savings. Look, a president’s proposed budget is _always_ a load of hooey, in that Congress, a co-equal branch of the government, actually gets the write the real budget that becomes law. So you can complain that this program or this idea won’t get implemented, but you have to actually show that there’s reason to believe that Obama is still going to be signing into law budgets with trillion-dollar-plus at the end of his time in office, even though that is explicitly not his plan. Or you can admit you completely made this whole thing up. I’m not expecting you to, but how quickly you backed off your unemployment claim gave me a glimmer of hope. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/95 "2009-03-10T19:37:12Z")
> [@kniz](#): > > So you consider yourself open-minded, independent and down-to-earth? :dubious: Barring evidence to the contrary (do you have any?), yes, naturally. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/96 "2009-03-10T21:29:39Z")
To date, there are 15,620 pieces of evidence to the contrary. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/97 "2009-03-11T00:25:35Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I like this. I think I’ll start using it. Maybe do up a tshirt with Tommy Douglas’s face pasted into the famous Che Guevara picture. 🆒 I’d buy one. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/98 "2009-03-11T00:48:53Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Clinton took in a high unemployment rate when he was sworn in and nearly halved it during 8 years. Bush took that low unemployment rate and nearly doubled it in another 8 years. > Yes, on average they scored the same, but Clinton started low and got high and W started high and plummeted; implying that they had equivalent performances is absolutely disingenious. Jesus, you guys are like pyromaniacs running amok in a field of straw men (to quote George Will). I’m not interested in debating the relative dynamic performances over time of the Bush and Clinton economies in this thread. What I was responding to was the claim that the economy was perceived to be horrible by many liberals on this board in Bush’s first term. I would point out that actually it was a pretty good economy, and for my trouble I’d be accused of ‘cheerleading’. At the time, there were no 8 year trends to extrapolate, and no economic collapse to blame on Bush. There was simply the static economy of that time, which the liberals on this board kept claiming was horrible. The only reason I brought up Clinton at all was to point out that in the Clinton economy the opinions of the left were reversed, and yet the macro indicators weren’t all that different. But I should have known that even the slightest comparison between Bush and Clinton would kick off another round of outraged yowling about how horrible he was. Even stipulating that he was, it has nothing to do with the point I was making in this thread. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Let’s do. I’d just love for you to take me to the woodshed again like you have in this thread. (I actually came across it all again last night while doing some searches prompted by your posts here. I’m very happy to review it again for everyone else’s entertainment.) Great. Please post the link. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Oooh! Oooh! Can we do the “trees pollute more than people do” bit again too? Oh, please do. Maybe we can make it a two-fer. Bear in mind that this won’t be good for your blood pressure, as the last time to tried to dredge that up to score points it backfired in your face, because A) you distorted my point, and B) I posted a zillion cites that disproved your case. As I recall, even people who started on your side on that one were backing away from you by the time that thread ended. Maybe we can save time - you post the link to the original thread, I’ll post the one where I smacked you down when you tried to pull the same lame stunt you’re trying now, and neither of us have to do any more heavy lifting. We can just post the links and let other people read them if they decide they’ve got way too much free time. On the other hand, you could accept that at best we fought that one to a draw, and that it happened years ago, and we could just forget it. But hey, if you want to go at it again, be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/99 "2009-03-11T02:09:58Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > …At the time, there were no 8 year trends to extrapolate, and no economic collapse to blame on Bush. There was simply the static economy of that time, which the liberals on this board kept claiming was horrible. The only reason I brought up Clinton at all was to point out that in the Clinton economy the opinions of the left were reversed, and yet the macro indicators weren’t all that different… Yes, there was an economic collapse to blame on Bush, the one that was coming when we said “It’s fucking coming!” and now is here. A static economy is pretty bad when you absitively posolutely need growth. When you add in a ruinously expensive military adventure paid for on credit, you have the recipe for a nasty economic fever. And even that would not have been so bad were it not for the creative financial voodoo unleashed by deregulation and an attitude of benign neglect, fostered by the perfectly ridiculous notions of a Free Market that corrects itself by magic. [brief diatribe] Ever see _Casino_, DeNiro flick about him being a casino boss? The line goes something like “The dealers watch the players, the pit boss watches the dealers, the floor boss watches the pit bosses, the manager watches the floor bosses and the cameras in the ceiling watch everybody”. Why? Because they are handling money, And these guys are only handling a few piddling millions. Even less, on a slow day! Financial institutions must be boring and staid. They must be kept that way by relentless scrutiny and nit-picking regulation. The ideal money manager is not a go get 'em entreprenuer. Not a lion tamer, but a certified public accountant. The really solid credit that a capitalist system \*must \*depend upon relies on financial institutions. That system is nothing more substantial than simple trust, and it must be absolutely grey, dull, and leaden. Correctly run, there isn’t enough risk to generate much profit. Not enough profit to satisfy a greed freak, by a long shot. Which is precisely as it should be, which is precisely why relentless scrutiny and regulation is absolutely necessary. [end diatribe] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827/100 "2009-03-11T03:20:37Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Jesus, you guys are like pyromaniacs running amok in a field of straw men (to quote George Will). I’m not interested in debating the relative dynamic performances over time of the Bush and Clinton economies in this thread. What I was responding to was the claim that the economy was perceived to be horrible by many liberals on this board in Bush’s first term. I would point out that actually it was a pretty good economy, and for my trouble I’d be accused of ‘cheerleading’. Ah, that George Will, always being so autobiographical. I’ve got a smashed watch that is correct more often than he is. The seeds for the awful economy were planted when Bush took office and planned to invade and occupy Iraq. At that point our economy headed down the road to ruin. It did not manifest itself clearly 2007/8. I can appreciate why no one would want to try to defend a comparison of the Clinton and Bush economies for the Bush side. It is indefensible. But you did make the comparison. We did not make up a “straw man” and put those statistics into your post for you, you did. You have shown great wisdom in refusing to try to defend it further. You will join the left side, the Chimperor has foreseen it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-stone-in-your-humble-opinion/488827.md?page=6)