Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Lying 'til it's the truth.

MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did you know that blood is blue inside your body, and that it only becomes red when it oxidizes? Are you aware that if the earth were 1 degree closer to the sun, we'd burn to death, but if it were 1 degree further, we'd freeze? What about the fact that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from space? Alas, these are all lies which are now accepted as a truth to many, regardless of how reality views them. Why? Because they get repeated regularly. The sky isn't blue because it reflects water, ostriches don't stick their heads in the sand, and Republicans aren't fiscally-responsible.

That's right. The party which champions itself as the party of fiscal responsibility is anything but. The two competing parties have had substantially different results in terms of economic outlooks.

We'll start with the budget. "Obama is doubling the deficit!" We hear it all the time. It gets repeated all the time. However, a mere look into the deficit since 09 (When Obama came into office to a $1.4 trillion deficit), we can see that the deficit is reducing. It's $1.1 trillion now, and is likely to go under a trillion by the year's end. This same rhetoric applies to Obama being a spend-happy President. Once again, an outright lie which is repeated 'til it's truth. Obama actually has the lowest growth rate in federal spending since Ike (1.5% growth rate in federal spending). This big-spending President is a straw man. So where do these generalizations come from?

We idealize Democrats as these big tax-and-spend Presidents for reasons unknown to me. Fact is, Democratic Presidents preside over deficit reductions, and even surpluses, whereas Republican Presidencies typically see an expansion over budget deficits, with few reductions ever taking place. In addition to that, the DOW Jones typically responds under Democratic Presidents with a 9%-per-year growth rate under Democrats, but only a 6% per-year growth under Republicans. More recessions and market crashes happen under Republican Presidencies than do Democratic ones, including the biggest of the bunch (The Great Depression and The Great Recession). The debt-to-GDP ratio typically gets reduced under Democratic Presidents, with Nixon actually acting as the most "fiscally conservative" in that sense in the last 70 years. The increase of debt-by-percentage is typically low under Democrats than it is under Republicans. We talked about Obama's record debt increases. He's actually only had a 10.3% increase according to the CBO. Dubya had a 25% increase, and Reagan took the 2nd place ribbon with a 20.6% increase. Democrats have created 42 million jobs since 1961, while Republicans created 24 million. Even federal workforce is typically smaller under Democrats. Since Obama's taken office, government has shrunk. The champions of small government usually preside over an increase in government size.

So if you're not fiscally responsible, what do you call yourself? The party of defense? No. The single worst terror attack in US history happened on their watch, to which they responded to by invading Iraq. It was a Democrat who killed bin Laden. The party of family values? Can you really call yourself that if Newt Gingrich is a prominent figure of your party? Why don't Republicans just champion themselves as what they really are? The party of lies. Significantly more lies than that of Democrats, according to data-compiled from the non-partisan fact-checking organization Politifact.

Reality doesn't actually have a liberal bias. Facts don't take sides. Repeating something which is false in meager attempts to make it true don't actually make it true. Obama hasn't spent more than all Presidents combined. Obamacare isn't the biggest tax hike of all time. The work requirement for welfare wasn't taken away by President Obama. Global Warming is actually happening, people can be born gay, you actually use more than 10% of your brain, and lemmings aren't suicidal.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:49:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
*bashs the GOP, ignores the faults on both sides, comes off as incredibly ignorant*

*yawn*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:50:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:49:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
*bashs the GOP, ignores the faults on both sides, comes off as incredibly ignorant*

*yawn*

You're welcome to actually refute my claims.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:55:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:50:10 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/3/2013 12:49:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
*bashes the GOP, ignores the faults on both sides, comes off as incredibly ignorant*

*yawn*

You're welcome to actually refute my claims.

Why does the above require me to refute anything? Though I will probably anyway.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:59:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:55:08 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/3/2013 12:50:10 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/3/2013 12:49:18 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
*bashes the GOP, ignores the faults on both sides, comes off as incredibly ignorant*

*yawn*

You're welcome to actually refute my claims.

Why does the above require me to refute anything? Though I will probably anyway.

That's kind of the idea. I'd like other people's input onto this.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 1:37:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Did you know that blood is blue inside your body, and that it only becomes red when it oxidizes? Are you aware that if the earth were 1 degree closer to the sun, we'd burn to death, but if it were 1 degree further, we'd freeze? What about the fact that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from space? Alas, these are all lies which are now accepted as a truth to many, regardless of how reality views them. Why? Because they get repeated regularly. The sky isn't blue because it reflects water, ostriches don't stick their heads in the sand, and Republicans aren't fiscally-responsible.

That's right. The party which champions itself as the party of fiscal responsibility is anything but. The two competing parties have had substantially different results in terms of economic outlooks.

We'll start with the budget. "Obama is doubling the deficit!" We hear it all the time. It gets repeated all the time. However, a mere look into the deficit since 09 (When Obama came into office to a $1.4 trillion deficit), we can see that the deficit is reducing. It's $1.1 trillion now, and is likely to go under a trillion by the year's end. This same rhetoric applies to Obama being a spend-happy President. Once again, an outright lie which is repeated 'til it's truth. Obama actually has the lowest growth rate in federal spending since Ike (1.5% growth rate in federal spending). This big-spending President is a straw man. So where do these generalizations come from?

We idealize Democrats as these big tax-and-spend Presidents for reasons unknown to me. Fact is, Democratic Presidents preside over deficit reductions, and even surpluses, whereas Republican Presidencies typically see an expansion over budget deficits, with few reductions ever taking place. In addition to that, the DOW Jones typically responds under Democratic Presidents with a 9%-per-year growth rate under Democrats, but only a 6% per-year growth under Republicans. More recessions and market crashes happen under Republican Presidencies than do Democratic ones, including the biggest of the bunch (The Great Depression and The Great Recession). The debt-to-GDP ratio typically gets reduced under Democratic Presidents, with Nixon actually acting as the most "fiscally conservative" in that sense in the last 70 years. The increase of debt-by-percentage is typically low under Democrats than it is under Republicans. We talked about Obama's record debt increases. He's actually only had a 10.3% increase according to the CBO. Dubya had a 25% increase, and Reagan took the 2nd place ribbon with a 20.6% increase. Democrats have created 42 million jobs since 1961, while Republicans created 24 million. Even federal workforce is typically smaller under Democrats. Since Obama's taken office, government has shrunk. The champions of small government usually preside over an increase in government size.

So if you're not fiscally responsible, what do you call yourself? The party of defense? No. The single worst terror attack in US history happened on their watch, to which they responded to by invading Iraq. It was a Democrat who killed bin Laden. The party of family values? Can you really call yourself that if Newt Gingrich is a prominent figure of your party? Why don't Republicans just champion themselves as what they really are? The party of lies. Significantly more lies than that of Democrats, according to data-compiled from the non-partisan fact-checking organization Politifact.

Reality doesn't actually have a liberal bias. Facts don't take sides. Repeating something which is false in meager attempts to make it true don't actually make it true. Obama hasn't spent more than all Presidents combined. Obamacare isn't the biggest tax hike of all time. The work requirement for welfare wasn't taken away by President Obama. Global Warming is actually happening, people can be born gay, you actually use more than 10% of your brain, and lemmings aren't suicidal.

There's a lot at fault with this, but we'll start here.

1) "Happened under" =/= "caused by" or "allowed by" for example, you throw Bush out for 9/11 though he had only been in office for a matter of months, when nearly all of the planning and organizing for the attacks was done under the Clinton admin.

We often see this explained the other way when we point out how the Job Loss since Obama first took office isn't his fault but a result for the failings of Bush.

2) Saying that Obama hasn't grown the budget as fast as others doesn't mean he isn't growing the budget.

3) The high budget at the end of Bush was when the democrats held both houses of congress. Who controls the budget?

4) Both parties spend like drunken sailors that just cashed in a winning lottery ticket, but the difference is where they spend the money.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:36:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 1:37:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
There's a lot at fault with this, but we'll start here.

1) "Happened under" =/= "caused by" or "allowed by" for example, you throw Bush out for 9/11 though he had only been in office for a matter of months, when nearly all of the planning and organizing for the attacks was done under the Clinton admin.


I would agree to an extent. 9-11 becomes a bit more attributable to President Bush since there existed intel indicating an attack occurring, including that oft-unmentioned memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US".

2) Saying that Obama hasn't grown the budget as fast as others doesn't mean he isn't growing the budget.

I didn't say he grew the budget as fast as the others. I'm saying he's reducing it. It's not growing. It's shrinking.

3) The high budget at the end of Bush was when the democrats held both houses of congress. Who controls the budget?

Fair enough.

4) Both parties spend like drunken sailors that just cashed in a winning lottery ticket, but the difference is where they spend the money.

That's an equivocation fallacy. The data disagrees. Democrats spend less. That's why I'm trying to argue against the notion that the party is a big "tax-and-spend" party, because they don't tax-and-spend.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:55:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's an equivocation fallacy. The data disagrees. Democrats spend less. That's why I'm trying to argue against the notion that the party is a big "tax-and-spend" party, because they don't tax-and-spend.

This is probably true. Obama's 85 billion sequester might now re-label their party as the tax-and-cut party.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 10:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's not why the sky is blue?
All these years...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 10:07:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 8:36:15 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
I would agree to an extent. 9-11 becomes a bit more attributable to President Bush since there existed intel indicating an attack occurring, including that oft-unmentioned memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US".

The credibility of such attacks was low at the time, few would have predicted the threats to come to fruition. As far as terrorist attacks go, 9/11 is an incredible outlier. Let us not commit the historian's fallacy.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 7:29:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 8:36:15 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/3/2013 1:37:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
There's a lot at fault with this, but we'll start here.

1) "Happened under" =/= "caused by" or "allowed by" for example, you throw Bush out for 9/11 though he had only been in office for a matter of months, when nearly all of the planning and organizing for the attacks was done under the Clinton admin.


I would agree to an extent. 9-11 becomes a bit more attributable to President Bush since there existed intel indicating an attack occurring, including that oft-unmentioned memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US".

2) Saying that Obama hasn't grown the budget as fast as others doesn't mean he isn't growing the budget.

I didn't say he grew the budget as fast as the others. I'm saying he's reducing it. It's not growing. It's shrinking.

To Obama's credit, he is decreasing he spending increases. It is like me spending 100 dollars, and increasing that by 10 dollars each month, he is trying to cut it down to an increase of 7-8. I can give sources if you need, he isn't cutting the spending at all, that is the most fallacious thing you could say. He is still bringing dramatic spending increases, they are just less then his last term.


3) The high budget at the end of Bush was when the democrats held both houses of congress. Who controls the budget?

Fair enough.

4) Both parties spend like drunken sailors that just cashed in a winning lottery ticket, but the difference is where they spend the money.

That's an equivocation fallacy. The data disagrees. Democrats spend less. That's why I'm trying to argue against the notion that the party is a big "tax-and-spend" party, because they don't tax-and-spend.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:40:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:47:02 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
We'll start with the budget. "Obama is doubling the deficit!" We hear it all the time. It gets repeated all the time. However, a mere look into the deficit since 09 (When Obama came into office to a $1.4 trillion deficit), we can see that the deficit is reducing. It's $1.1 trillion now, and is likely to go under a trillion by the year's end.

I never understood why Obama didn't destroy Romney on this during the debates. Romney gave him at least 2 or 3 opportunities.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:46:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:29:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
2) Saying that Obama hasn't grown the budget as fast as others doesn't mean he isn't growing the budget.

I didn't say he grew the budget as fast as the others. I'm saying he's reducing it. It's not growing. It's shrinking.

To Obama's credit, he is decreasing he spending increases. It is like me spending 100 dollars, and increasing that by 10 dollars each month, he is trying to cut it down to an increase of 7-8. I can give sources if you need, he isn't cutting the spending at all, that is the most fallacious thing you could say. He is still bringing dramatic spending increases, they are just less then his last term.

Okay, so he reduces future spending by $2 trillion, but is still having dramatic spending increases, all while having the lowest growth rate in federal spending since President Dwight? Is that what you're saying?