Post 123 on page 3 of this thread. Sorry, but I don’t know how to link to a post.
Dude, link that it’s against board rules.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6617547&highlight=liberaltarian#post6617547
Post 257, a little before and after.
For example, you state that one cannot cut taxes without helping the wealthy. This might be true, if the only tax that existed was a flat income tax. But of course, our tax system—and the tax cuts—are far more complex than that. To believe that you cannot give targeted tax breaks to the middle class belies an utter lack of knowledge about the US tax system. That’s just from the first substantive paragraph. Shall I go on?
In any case, I think the meat of your post was pretty good. Namely, that the economy really is doing half-decent given the circumstances (though, I think there can be legitimate argument about who is responsible for the circumstances).
Thanks for re-stating your claim. I guess what I was looking for was some sort of support for hyperbole=help. Since you’ve failed to offer it, let me try to frame your argument charitably.
Terrorists are emboldened by the left’s false criticisms of Bush.
Feeling more righteous, they are therefore more likely to continue fighting
Therfore, false criticisms aid the terrorists.
Is this a fair summary?
Assuming it is, here are the problems:
1)You cannot provide any meaningful distinction between false criticisms and true criticisms with regard to how they would embolden terrorists. If anything, it seems likely that true criticisms would embolden them more than false ones.
2)If you think terrorists need leftist criticism to feel self-righteous, you really don’t understand terrorism.
3)You believe that terrorists are ultimately responsible for their actions. If that absolves the US of creating them, why does it not absolve the left of aiding them?
It’s worth adding that the real reason your argument is flawed is that much of the left’s criticism is valid. And the extent to which it changes the policies that are helping terrorists recruit other terrorists is far more significant that the extent to which it directly helps terrorists.
But I was just arguing within your own ideological framework.
Much as a pyromaniac is not responsible for burning down a house? It’s just the fire’s fault?
Mujahedeen are streaming into Iraq as a direct result of Bush’s initiative. Bush was warned prior to the invasion that he was playing with fire. He needed to legitimize his actions through a relevant forum (the UN) and with sufficient evidence to prove his case.
Instead he chose the idiotic cowboy path and I seem to remember you and others cheering him all the way and even arguing that here at last was a president with balls, principle, a man of action who can take the country into the new political landscape of the 21st century, etc. Now that the Bushite agenda has handed major PR victories to terrorist recruiters, you forget your past arguments?
Civil war is brewing in Iraq, regardless of the feel-good news that are the emphasis of the Bushites and supporters. Many of the signs of another Bosnia are right there, right down to the influx of foreign Islamist fighters.
Furthermore, Bush energized al Qaeda and opened the door to terrorist movements in Iraq (’ the invasion of Iraq had “enhanced jihadist recruitment and intensified al-Qaida’s motivation” to mount terrorist operations’). After 9/11 and Afghanistan, al Qaeda was dealt a severe blow, in fact it appeared to be very nearly stunned, hitting only a few small soft targets wherever it could. The inavsion of Iraq, probably one of the greatest if not the greatest recruitment drive in al Qaeda history, quickly changed that, and the group expanded and reorganized to attack targets in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Spain, the UK, Bali, and so forth (I think Italy may be next).
Obviously one cannot blame Bush for the crimes of terrorists, but Bush is fully responsible for creating a climate where al Qaeda and similar ideologies fester. If you put a fool in charge how do you expect him to temper his foolishness? Better to avoid foolishness in the first place.
Maybe, if you’re talking about some extremes. But instead of debating the issues, you lump together extremists and moderates of the opposite camp in an attempt to discredit them all based on the faults and idiocy of a few. That is dishonest and low-handed, even if it is, on occasion, a tu quoque rather than a spontaneous sally.
When the converse happens - when Republicans are being bashed - it’s not always quite the same situation in reversal (although your own sense of justice may disagree). That is because Bush supporters who remain supporters today tend to be ideological morons and/or staggeringly ignorant and lacking in perspective. I do NOT support making fun of Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservatives as groups, but it is fairly evident that the (diminished but still substantial in size) core of bush supporters all share a similar (foolish) philosophy, and thus make a fairer target than most large groups.
Until recently, the Republican party exhibited quite a high degree of ideological and philosophical unity on such issues, which made them fair targets (party devotion and blind faith in the party’s leader, which I find intellectually revolting). I do not believe that is the case any longer, as increasing numbers of Bush supporters appear to have their eyes pried open daily with the crowbar of reality.
I reject statements such as “republicans/democrats are idiots” and the like, I want that to be very clear. But this administration is corrupt and mentally deficient, and by extension so too are its supporters. Until a short time ago, those supporters included the large majority of Republicans (due to disinformation, propaganda, ignorance, hoodwinking, or whatnot). I think this explains some of the vitriol expressed against Republicans, and it is not completely undeserved.
And I must say, I see much more mass-media hatred coming out of the far Right - from loathsome vermiforms such as the mentally blank Ann Coulter - than I do from anywhere else on the political spectrum. That much is completely undeniable, no matter how it stings those on the Right who are more moderate but who nonetheless feel they have to associate with a general concept of what the “Right” is.
Nonetheless, protestors may be protesting for very valid reasons, as many anti-Vietnam war protestors were. To deny such right you would have to subscribe to the doctrine (already advocated by the Bushites, especially Rumsfeld) that the government provides overriding authority and direction, with the result that you would advocate intellectually bankrupt foolishness like “my country right or wrong”.
Otherwise, you make fair points about the dangers of excessive hyperbole. The only problem there may be your definition of excessive, because you seem to want to lump many objections into the “hyperbole” camp. It is quite difficult, however, to exaggerate the idiocy and recklessness of the current administrationt.
There’s also the whole fact that not only is the idea that “the left is helping terrorists” plain stupid but to claim that it’s beyond debate is pure fantasy.
As if some guy in another country who has decided to blow himself up and kill Americans sees a Michael Moore film and says “Yo, that’s what I’m talkin’ about! I was having doubts about this whole suicide thing, but now I’m gonna do it!”
To hardcore terrorists, we’re all targets in America. It’s not like Al Queda is sitting over a map picking places to hit and saying “What, New York? Naw, there are a lot of Liberals there and they are our closest allies. Let’s attack Texas instead.”
The most harmful thing that anybody can do to us, as a nation, is to criminalize dissent. Luckily that hasn’t happened, but some Coulter clones have that as their goal.
Well, in the Mr. T post Scylla wasn’t really making any points at all, he was just spewing insults in the style of Mr. T. Am I supposed to write a formal thesis paper to argue that such a post is bereft of any value in a debate? Fuck that. Now that he has posted something with actual content, I can go through it and see if there are any arguments I can make that someone else hasn’t gotten to first.
I agree that a tax cut could be a good idea, but it depends on the type of cut. Bush’s cuts were crap.
You are a such a Limbaugh parrot. Drop the talking points and start using your own brain.
One option would be not to cut taxes at all but simply dole out money to the working poor. You should at least be familiar with the major arguments against Bush’s tax cuts before you blab. One of the main ones was that cutting taxes for the rich doesn’t encourage them to consume (they just end up saving the money), whereas cutting the taxes of, or giving out money to, the middle class and poor results in greater consumption and a bigger economic stimulus. Not to mention heightened social justice.
You don’t–like most of the right wing–understand how labor and pay really work, do you? You blithely assume that the labor input of the poor is worth exactly what they get paid. But that’s not the case. In reality, the economy is structured to extract a lot of labor from the poor and middle class and disproportionately reward the upper class. So the status quo is screwing the poor.
Talking points, talking points. Meanwhile, they’re paying FiCA, regressive sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, etc.
Someone already said it, but dude, you really are imagination-poor. You raise exemptions for the poor and middle class while simultaneously raising tax rates on the rich. It’s pretty fucking simple.
First, Bush has the worst job creation record of any prez since Hoover. Second, I used the perfect tense: employment has sucked, so the quibble is with whether employment sucks now or not, since you can’t quibble that it has sucked for most of Bush’s term. I don’t think the 5% rate tells anywhere near the entire story. There are a lot of under-employed, miserable people out there, the job market is ultra-hyper-competitve, and there is a malaise that just can’t be denied–unless you’re willfully blind to it. I heard a stat on NPR that the percentage of employers offering health insurance has shrunk drastically. These are not nice, easy-going times.
Ooh, high optimum! That’s a double-plus-good situation!
I think it’s called “fear of inflation.”
Feel free to quote where I said “the economy sucks,” cuz I didn’t. I said Bush didn’t take us back from the crash, meaning, the bulk of Americans, the poor and middle class, are suffering. I declined to credit Bush with the GDP growth; it’s where you’d expect it to be based on the fundamental strength of the American economy. Read what I fucking write.
Duh again. You can have a good economy in terms of dollar figures that distributes 99% of the wealth to the rich, or you can have good economy with the same GDP that distributes it more equitably. My issue is with the method of distribution, not our level of production.
No, I blame him for proactively fucking the poor and middle class and thereby exacerbating the trend. I don’t blame him for the entire trend.
Then you are a Kool-Ade-drinking, Limbaugh-cock-sucking moron and there’s no hope for you. Very necessary? ATTACKING IRAQ WAS NECESSARY?! Couldn’t fucking do without it? It was a must?
You are an idiot.
[quote]
I don’t think your finger on the tap of the “national mood” is any more accurate than the economic acument you’ve demonstrated.
[quote]
What the fuck is an “acument” you babbling fuck? You wanna know what the national mood is? It’s FUCK OFF, you right-wing swine cunt! Fuck all you brain-washed brownshirt bitches, fuck your furher Bush, fuck that slimeball swine cunt Cheney, fuck Powell and Condi for selling their souls to the Devil (what a waste), fuck all you shits who are turning the country I love into a goddamn fascist Reich.
No, I’m just a pissed-off and unforgiving motherfucker at this point.
DROP THE TALKING POINTS, DUMBFUCK! I’ve got news for you: There are no terrorists. There are no people who wake up in the morning and think, “Yeah, I’m a terrorist.” Their self-images and intentions are not circumscribed by your neat little definition of what you need them to be. The people you label “terrorists” are a fairly disparate group of ignorant, dangerous, and highly motivated people who happen to use methods to accomplish their goals that are sick, evil, and ultimately self-destructive. I hate them just as much as you do. The difference between me and the right wing, however, is that I want to get rid of them through intelligent means, whereas you want to engage in the very fight they are picking with us. Our attacking Iraq is the ultimate fulfillment of Bin Laden’s desire for action on our part. It’s truly pathetic.
Really? Why is that? Is it because Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks? Plenty of evidence says that Saddam never had close ties with Al-Qaida. Is it because Saddam had WMD immediately prior to US invasion? Where the hell did they go? Where the hell did the manufacturing capabilities go? Is it because we’re spreading democracy? Bush sure as hell didn’t say anything about spreading democracy in his initial list of reasons to go to war, and we’re hardly doing a good job of spreading democracy there now. Too many people are trying to supress democracy here at home, by calling anyone who doesn’t agree with them unpatriotic and such.
I found this detailed economic argument that the real reason we are at war is for control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves:
Yeah, yeah, it’s all just paranoid left-wingnut conspiracy theory, right? Well, Clark has plenty of supporting cites of his own, so you can’t just say he’s making shit up. He also points out that the US could decouple itself from oil to a large extent by spurring research in alternative energy sources - something which our Oilman-In-Chief is loathe to do.
I urge a careful rereading.
::applause::
Truly, an excellent summary of what we’re dealing with.
Not if that’s what you have. The dichotomy I was responding to was rich versus poor, not poor versus middle class.
The American people, Greenspan, the tax cuts.
Untrue, I already did. False criticisms serve only the terrorists. True criticisms serve the American people
Perhaps better than you. What is a terrorist’s goal and how do they achieve it? They are essentially fighting a fear and PR battle. They simply seek to make what their opponents are doing so unpopular that they give up. So, they absolutely count on criticism.
Because those are two different things that don’t equate with each other.
There was quite a bit of content in the MR T. post.
It’s not helpful to say that unless you tell me why.
It wouldn’t be fair.
I think I said, you work your way out of a recession by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Handing out money to the poor would be the latter.
Yes. I’ve heard that argument. It’s not necessarily true. The other side of it is that poor and middle class people have large amounts of debt. Rather than spending it, a large part of it goes to paying down that debt.
What I think is that both arguments are true to degrees. Which will be the larger operating force depends on the economic circumstances prevalent at the time. If debt loads are high, and consumer confidence is low, than tax cuts to the middle class will likely go to reducing debt.
You have to realize that tax cuts affect profit margins. It increases them. That incentivises business owners to hire.
Heightened social justice assumes that the person implementing it is qualified to do so.
You don’t–like most of the right wing–understand how labor and pay really work, do you?
[/quote]
I’m absolutely positive I have a stronger grasp on it than you.
I never said that. Don’t create strawmen. To make that assumption is to endorse the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis. Pretty much only an idiot does that.
This is too vaguely worded to be meaningful. You need to define the terms you are speaking in.
The earned income tax credit basically dispenses with payroll taxes. You’re second point is valid though. Sales taxes disproportionately penalize lower income levels. I would have no problem with a repeal of most sales taxes accompanied with a commensurate increase in income taxes. Sounds fair and appropriate to me. I don’t think you can argue property taxes are necessarily regressive, though.
The middle class did get a tax cut. The poor are basically exempt from Federal taxes up to about $50,000 for a family of four (which is no longer poor.)
Let me try it this way: The poor don’t make a lot of money. Exempting them from taxes doesn’t help.
No. Employment has been pretty strong even through the post bubble/ 9/11 recession. Go check unemployment rates for the last five years, and compare them for previous five year periods and then tell me it sucked. You don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
Quantify “under-employed.” Quantify “ultra-hyper-competive” and while you’re at it, explain to me what it means and why it’s bad. As for your “undeniable malaise,” perhaps you might quantify that as well. The term you may be looking for is “consumer confidence.” If it is, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but I don’t really think you have your finger on the pulse of the economy.
They seldom are. What is it that you make of the former statement. I accept it’s true. Considering the environment it should be. Health costs and insurance costs have been skyrocketing. It makes it a harder benefit to offer.
Yes. High optimum is good. And there is governmental fear of inflation. I said that. What’s your point?
Why don’t you define equitably?
What exactly is your problem here.
Off to gibberish land. I said “necessary.”
Thank you.
A misspelling of “acumen.”
Hmmmm. Blew a gasket, did we?
No, what you said was:
The implication being that you cannot. This is false.
I realize you’re being piled on here, so I’ll cut you some slack, and wait for a genuine reply here. Surely you understand why the above is not an argument, but rather a restatement of your conclusion.
Fine. But the terrorists that we’re supposed to be fighting seek to make us give up on things not remotely affected by leftist criticism (Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion, historical incidents (!)). If your argument is that the insurgency in Iraq is served by us withdrawing from Iraq, and that this is made more likely by leftist criticism, I think we agree. That is indeed the point of the criticism–but this would be a very disingenuous a poorly communicated point indeed.
And there remains the problem of defintion. We are advised that legitimate criticism is healthy and wholesome, but exagerration and hyperbole are treasonous. But where does one draw the line? We are futher given to understand that friend Scylla would be willing to be elected to the post of Censor, and offers his proven track record of probity and wisdom.
Alas. That record is a record of ferocious resistance to truth and fact, a series of rearguard defenses, each crumbling more ignomiously than the last. “A is A, and B is B” we said. “Hold on! A may not be A, you haven’t proven it, albino monkees may yet fly out of my ass and sing ‘Dixie’!” Offering yourself as such an arbiter would be akin to Jubiliation T. Cornpone offering himself for Chair of the Joint Chiefs.
As to the “Mr. T” schtick, its not quite up to your standards, as evinced by the long-forgotten “pirate” schtick. That was wittier, in the same way a brick floats better than a cannon ball. A less generous man might be moved to point out that you have a clear inclination to hyper-masculine imagery, and wonder if you like gladiator movies. A less generous man, that is.
Underlining in order to separate out the main points.
Hyperbole and treaason:
Bush - Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.
Cheney - aid and comfort to the enemy
Where to draw the line: