US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[grumdin]

Ah, now we've reached the "posting dictionary definitions" of your awful, stupid, hacky game -- the game that I already said I wasn't going to play any more.

I forget -- did you post the definition of "recidivism" too, or was that just a definition you invented to prevent having to admit you were talking out of your ass?

So that's a no then? I actually don't think you meant to write that you thought the militia threatened to kill cops or that Bundy was a criminal who broke the law, as neither are true. Leave it at that, just remember how sucky it is to be held to the same standards you demand from others.

[Suttree]

Really? That's where you want to go with this? I stated the demographics in the pools were terrible, i produced, at your request, citations to back that assertion.

It doesn't back the point you were trying to make as the MA comparison makes clear. Further your reading comprehension skills seem to be sorely lacking if the above is your take away from the article and data. It's either flat out ignorance or dishonesty in trying to move the goal posts to "well they didn't meet the stated goals".

It's ok though, as you're aware were willing to make some allowances. Again...it just gets tough when you over play your hand on a daily basis.

Edit:

Good God these latest Bundy posts are almost breathtaking in level of blatant trolliness. Subtlety isn't much of a strong suit eh?

[Inigima]

Btw

definiton of criminal

So what crimes has Bundy been found guilty of? What criminal proceedings have or are currently being taken against him?

Are you proposing that if I stab a guy, but have not yet been caught, charged, tried, and convicted, I'm not a criminal?

And whether you are or aren't, do you genuinely see value in this kind of semantic game?

Inigima,

Deregulation of health care and banning third party insurance insuring that induivuduals have to pay for their own health care costs. In other words one that, like single payer, is unlikely to pass. As such we're left with a hybrid monstrosity that will make the existing problem worse.

Interesting. Yes, pretty difficult to put the genie back in that particular bottle at this point. You are aware, of course, that this method of administration would result in some being unable to afford treatment, even if costs were not inflated by insurance to date?

[grumdin]

It doesn't back the point you were trying to make as the MA comparison makes clear. Further your reading comprehension skills seem to be sorely lacking if the above is your take away from the article and data. It's either flat out ignorance or dishonesty in trying to move the goal posts to "well they didn't meet the stated goals".

It's ok though, as you're aware were willing to make some allowances. Again...it just gets tough when you over play your hand on a daily basis.

Edit:

Good God these latest Bundy posts are almost breathtaking in level of blatant trolliness. Subtlety isn't much of a strong suit eh?

You see? Minus the insulting language you almost made a coherent criticism. So apart from the broadbrush assertion that I'm a liar and an idiot what exactly in the data I cited, or for that matter the data you can cite, proves that the ACA pools are working? And again if you read the whole article you'd know that having a take up rate of 28% nationally for the 18-34 age group is not good even though having the same take up rate in Mass under Romneycare was acceptable.

Btw I'm not trying to troll, and honestly I'm getting sick of being accused of it. I only expect individuals to live by the standards they demand from others.

[Wise Fool]

So that's a no then? I actually don't think you meant to write that you thought the militia threatened to kill cops or that Bundy was a criminal who broke the law, as neither are true. Leave it at that, just remember how sucky it is to be held to the same standards you demand from others.

Bundy broke the law. That was the actual claim, Mr Strawman.

[grumdin]

Are you proposing that if I stab a guy, but have not yet been caught, charged, tried, and convicted, I'm not a criminal?

And whether you are or aren't, do you genuinely see value in this kind of semantic game?

Interesting. Yes, pretty difficult to put the genie back in that particular bottle at this point. You are aware, of course, that this method of administration would result in some being unable to afford treatment, even if costs were not inflated by insurance to date?

No I expect people to back up their assertions, especially if it's accusing a known individual with law breaking, with facts. Under your definition just about anyone could be labeled a criminal, just as long as you believed them to be. I promise in future to be very careful in the language I use, I won't be letting my mouth run away with itself. However I would expect the same from other posters, seems fair no?

[Suttree]

Minus the insulting language you almost made a coherent criticism.

Too good.

And again if you read the whole article you'd know that having a take up rate of 28% nationally for the 18-34 age group is not good even though having the same take up rate in Mass under Romneycare was acceptable.

Sigh. I'm done. Keep shifting those goal posts.

. I promise in future to be very careful in the language I use, I won't be letting my mouth run away with itself.

So in other words you will do the exact opposite of the majority of posts you've made to date. It would be nice but call me skeptical. I have feeling the quote above is going to be trotted out on a pretty consistent basis.

[grumdin]

Bundy broke the law. That was the actual claim, Mr Strawman.

The actual claim was that a militia army threatened federal officials and that Bundy broke the law, I've asked for proof of either and I'm still waiting.

[DanteGabriel]

So that's a no then? I actually don't think you meant to write that you thought the militia threatened to kill cops or that Bundy was a criminal who broke the law, as neither are true. Leave it at that, just remember how sucky it is to be held to the same standards you demand from others.

Well there you go, mischaracterizing my arguments... in bad faith. I never said the militia "threatened to kill cops." I said they were there to threaten the federal agents who were enforcing court orders. And I think it's pretty cut-and-dry that, based on the rhetoric they were spewing there and the picture of the guy in a sniper position leveling his rifle, they were there to threaten the feds. I don't care if you think the feds started the armed confrontation -- I guarantee you that if any of the rest of us who didn't have a gang of armed yahoos behind us decided to point a gun at law enforcement, that would be considered a threat, and freedom or life would be quickly curtailed. The fact that you don't think that's a threat does, yes, speak to your ability to handle things in good faith.

On Bundy's criminality -- yes, I do think refusing to obey a court order for sixteen years, refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of the federal government, refusing to cooperate with law enforcement, and inviting armed strangers down to back up your illegal position is criminal.

So you're quibbling with me over semantics and interpretation that I still stand by. You, on the other hand, made stupid assertions that were refuted immediately, and you then proceeded to argue over them well past the point of sanity, and now you mealy-mouth them as just "rambling hyperbole." If it's rambling hyperbole to say that no liberals have ever criticized Obama's drone policies, then the time to say, "Okay, I was being hyperbolic" is after the first or second article refuting your claim is posted -- not to continue to engage in pages and pages of desperate goalpost-shifting and semantic obfuscation to avoid admitting it, and then days later to say maybe there was some hyperbole going on.

It's nice that you have now pledged to be more careful with your words, but maybe the time for that was after the first stupid argument over your serial "hyperbole." I'm afraid your Hack Recidivism Rate is near 100%.

[Inigima]

Edit. Double post

[Inigima]

No I expect people to back up their assertions, especially if it's accusing a known individual with law breaking, with facts. Under your definition just about anyone could be labeled a criminal, just as long as you believed them to be. I promise in future to be very careful in the language I use, I won't be letting my mouth run away with itself. However I would expect the same from other posters, seems fair no?

You aren't addressing the substance of my criticism, either on purpose or because you don't understand it.

I'm suggesting that the commission of an illegal act is a sufficient condition to be termed a criminal, whether or not the state has, as yet, taken action against the actor for it.

I'm further suggesting that if you disagree, it's purely a matter of semantics and makes little difference. If you don't like the word "criminal" you can apply a different word, but it's nothing more than an attempt at wriggling out of responsibility on a technicality, and your dictionary definition -- really, a dictionary definition? -- doesn't make your point or contradict mine. If you sincerely believe that it does then you are badly in need of reading comprehension skills.

[Wise Fool]

The actual claim was that a militia army threatened federal officials and that Bundy broke the law, I've asked for proof of either and I'm still waiting.

Failure to pay fees is indeed breaking a law. That is why in your latest demand for proof, you specifically framed the demand so as to exclude that. "Aside from failure to pay fees," you say, and then asked for "citations of Bundy's rampant law breaking." But nobody claimed that Bundy was "rampantly" breaking laws other than failure to pay fees, and so your argument is founded on a strawman fallacy.

I don't see why anyone bother arguing with you beyond this point; your willful inability to honestly discuss or debate anything is too much of an obstacle. If you can't agree that up is indeed not the same as down, why bother debating what things are up and which are down?

[grumdin]

Well there you go, mischaracterizing my arguments... in bad faith. I never said the militia "threatened to kill cops." I said they were there to threaten the federal agents who were enforcing court orders. And I think it's pretty cut-and-dry that, based on the rhetoric they were spewing there and the picture of the guy in a sniper position leveling his rifle, they were there to threaten the feds. I don't care if you think the feds started the armed confrontation -- I guarantee you that if any of the rest of us who didn't have a gang of armed yahoos behind us decided to point a gun at law enforcement, that would be considered a threat, and freedom or life would be quickly curtailed. The fact that you don't think that's a threat does, yes, speak to your ability to handle things in good faith.

On Bundy's criminality -- yes, I do think refusing to obey a court order for sixteen years, refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of the federal government, refusing to cooperate with law enforcement, and inviting armed strangers down to back up your illegal position is criminal.

So you're quibbling with me over semantics and interpretation that I still stand by. You, on the other hand, made stupid assertions that were refuted immediately, and you then proceeded to argue over them well past the point of sanity. I'm afraid your Hack Recidivism Rate is near 100%.

I'm really not quibbling over anything, I've asked you to provide proof that a 'militia army threaned federal officials' (and if an army isn't threatening to kill you it's not much of an army) and that Mr. Bundy broke the law. And no failure to pay federal grazing fees is not a criminal matter. Besides stating your opinion about Cliven Bundy's views and the motivation of the militia you can't.

[DanteGabriel]

Yup, he's recidivized.

[sologdin]

we could of course just retroactively amend all instances of criminal in these threads to one who has committed apparent criminal acts and has not yet been convicted. that should satisfy everyone's concerns over this guy.

I have mentally amended the thread to replace criminal with hedley lamar, however.

[grumdin]

Failure to pay fees is indeed breaking a law. That is why in your latest demand for proof, you specifically framed the demand so as to exclude that. "Aside from failure to pay fees," you say, and then asked for "citations of Bundy's rampant law breaking." But nobody claimed that Bundy was "rampantly" breaking laws other than failure to pay fees, and so your argument is founded on a strawman fallacy.

I don't see why anyone bother arguing with you beyond this point; your willful inability to honestly discuss or debate anything is too much of an obstacle. If you can't agree that up is indeed not the same as down, why bother debating what things are up and which are down?

Ahem

On Bundy's criminality -- yes, I do think refusing to obey a court order for sixteen years, refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of the federal government, refusing to cooperate with law enforcement, and inviting armed strangers down to back up your illegal position is criminal.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm really not quibbling over anything, I've asked you to provide proof that a 'militia army threaned federal officials' (and if an army isn't threatening to kill you it's not much of an army) and that Mr. Bundy broke the law. And no failure to pay federal grazing fees is not a criminal matter.

Proof was provided. You did not accept it as proof. Your inability to recognize a sniper with rifle leveled as a "threat" does not negate the existence of the threat.

"Failure to pay federal grazing fees" is not what we're talking about here, but thanks again for your dishonest goal-post shifting. Bundy has refused to comply with a court order for sixteen years, and interfered with federal agents attempting to do their jobs.

ETA: The next step in your sad little dance is going to be to post the definition of "rampant," isn't it?

[awesome possum]

I think you guys are confusing grummy's inability to debate in good faith with a refusal to do so. Unless he really is just a bored troll, he is trying really hard and just not succeeding at winning his points as opposed to trying really hard with the goal being not to succeed but annoy.

Anyway, a GOP candidate in South Dakota tries to light a spark under her (dead last) campaign by comparing poor people to animals

Dr. Annette Bosworth posted an image to her campaign Facebook page Monday, which compares the National Park Service’s policy of discouraging feeding wild animals to the food stamp “hand out program” to provide a “lesson in irony.”

“The food stamp program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” text on the image reads. “They proudly report that they distribute free meals and food stamps to over 46 million people on an annual basis.”

“Meanwhile, the National Park Service, run by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us, ‘Please do not feed the animals,’” the text continues. “Their state reason for this being that… ‘The animals will grow dependent on the handouts, and then they will never learn to take care of themselves.”

And another assho - I mean Republican, this one elected, adds his two cents about the minimum wage

Second District Congressman Markwayne Mullin said Friday morning that a Democratic proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 is a political ploy rather than an attempt to help low-wage workers.

"The president said $10.10 because somebody pulled it out of thin air," the Republican told a small gathering at Pryor City Hall. "It sounded good. He has nothing to back it up.

"It's just something they put out because raising the minimum wage sounds good."

...

If anything, Mullin said, employers ought to be able to pay less to starting workers receiving benefits such as food stamps, with automatic increases and diminishing benefits as they progress.

These guys and gals sure know how to keep it classy. What's even more mind-boggling than believing this fucking drivel is how many people they are insulting will continue to blindly vote for them.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm really not quibbling over anything, I've asked you to provide proof that a 'militia army threaned federal officials' (and if an army isn't threatening to kill you it's not much of an army) and that Mr. Bundy broke the law. And no failure to pay federal grazing fees is not a criminal matter. Besides stating your opinion about Cliven Bundy's views and the motivation of the militia you can't.

You can't even quote me right. Whatever things you think logically follow, please don't put words in my mouth -- futile, I know, because that's what your argument style is based on. But you accused me of saying they had "threatened to kill" federal agents and I simply did not say that. Weak sauce. Pathetic lies. You're not being careful with what you say at all.

[sologdin]

i love it, as though employment were a "benefit" conferred by the employer, and the various benefits of employment and of public assistance are subject to coordination in the manner of SSA and workers' compensation benefits.