The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central How the world sees Republicans

Spiegel on US Republicans.

Who is William F. Buckley of this generation?

Sowell, Paul, Napolitano , Christie

Pretty crappy and biased article all around, though its criticisms of Cain and Newt and Perry are more or less accurate.

Without fail its "biased article all around" every time you hear something you don't like. At least you are still listening, most conservatives these days simply go "Na Na Na, I can't hear you".

So who or what are you going to blame when Obama wins what should have been easy election for Republicans? I can't wait until Republicans clean up their act, you need solid opposition to keep your side focused, and I am afraid "our side or crazies" isn't much to work with.

So you are seriously going to try and assert that the article was not extremely biased?

You should examine the actual verbiage of the article. You should also vet its assertions.

Trying to say "Without fail its "biased article all around" every time you hear something you don't like." doesnt get you very far if you cant even put in a threadbare effort to vet your source material for sweeping inaccuracies, generalizations, and lies by omission.

Derid, unless article I link specifically calls for smaller government, less taxes (for the rich), and cuts to social programs conservatives like you going to call it "sweeping inaccuracies, generalizations, and lies by omission".

I made posts with links to peer-reviewed data, official figures and historical trends and had the same response. Conservative in-group bias so strong that it way into religious territory, anything contrary to dogma treated as blasphemy and ignored. Scary part is that even you don't seem to be aware of this, and I can't call you unintelligent.

Now you are just plain lying, and the worst part is you know it.



And regarding your links, they were mostly picked apart pretty well. I am thinking of your income chart, and instead of labeling it blasphemy - I seem to instead recall giving a pretty detailed account as to why the conclusions you were attempting to draw from it, with your fat-cat pictures was not in step with the reality presented by the chart.

My issue was with your implied conclusions, not the chart itself. So right away, without even getting into the idiocies perpetuated by these Germans you linked there is a matter-of-fact case where your links were not dismissed out of hand for not fitting some dogma.

Similar case with other discussions.

Lets be clear with something - they were shouted down, discussion topic changed, definitions shifted, and points never addressed. To date we had discussions on wealth inequality, government regulation and its role in wealth creation, health care reform, constitutionality of social program and progressive taxation and not once have you adequately addressed any of my points.

Specifically...



Specifically, very predictably you attempted to dismiss the data and redefine argument. First you said, "Your graphic includes anyone who makes over 100k. Thats not rich in many areas" and "geography would have a lot to do with the earnings" and then "the scale keeps pretty smooth and steady down to a lot larger segment than that top 10%". This is logical fallacy, you can ether attack definitions or address the argument from within set of presented definitions, not both at the same time. Then you shifted argument to tell me "That people closer to the bottom can still live well".

Wait, what.

I suggest you re read the conversations. You are the one who could not respond to 80% of the issues with your policies at all, let alone well. I seriously suggest looking again, and also remember - just because you cannot understand a rebuttal does not mean one was not presented, or valid.


Proof of your lack of skill can again be found in the very post I am responding to , where you assert that I dismissed the data. I did no such thing. What was clearly dismissed was not the data - I made no attempt to countermand the data itself - but rather your assertion that there was a correlation between the data and the "Fat Cats" you pictured right above the graph.

Furthermore, a study of grammar would inform you that the comments regarding geography were supporting arguments for the statement " That is not rich in many areas". The concept that cost of living varies widely is considered common knowledge.

Honestly, I can understand a lack of comprehension when it comes to complex arguments. But if you can or will not even discern the difference between attacking the data, and attacking your conjecture/assertions regarding said data - I suggest finding a different hobby other than debating economics or logic.

Please present detailed list of the issues I did not address.



As a rule I re-read portion of the thread I respond to, plus frequently I am forced to re-read past threads when they are brought up. My responses are consistent and message is clear - anyone caring to read what I wrote can see where I stand. I present new data, use multiple sources and do not relegate myself to simpleton semantic attacks. Now, if you think that your messages "cannot [be] understood", perhaps you should work on improving clarity, delivery or even rethink your message.



"Pretty crappy and biased article all around" is very clear dismissal of this thread. If you meant 'the graph post' then direct quote would be "Comparisons and charts such as that one play a big part in getting people who seriously study the subject matter to turn a deaf ear to those on the Left".

So far you have been nothing but dismissive in all of our discussions. To your credit dismissive attitude isn't the only response you produced, but it is consistently reoccurring theme in all your posts.