Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Did you actually spend any time thinking about what you would write in response before your knee jerked?

You wouldn't tolerate this from me, so I won't tolerate it from you.

Originally Posted by smc

I never said I wanted "corporations to be taxed like people."

Sorry, I got what you said confused with Randolph who said:

Originally Posted by randolph

Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Originally Posted by smc

Seriously, this is your response? I bet you'd be embarrassed to say such a thing on a stage, in a public debate, in front of people, when you can't hide behind the Internet.

You wouldn't tolerate this from me, so I won't tolerate it from you.

Originally Posted by smc

I said nothing about Obama's proposed legislation.

Did I say you did? I said it's already been tried by Obama.

Originally Posted by smc

I'd like to see your evidence that the implied direct link between failure of his bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate are positively correlated.

Accuse others of what you do. Do not stick words in my mouth. Or perhaps you'd like to quote where I said there's a direct link between failure of Obama's bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate.

Originally Posted by smc

In any case, while some Occupiers may support the specific Obama legislation, I would support something more along the lines of what was done during the Great Depression to put people to work doing what needs to be done. You know as well as the next person, Tracy Coxx, that it is government that builds roads, repairs bridges, and generally deals with infrastructure. We need those things done in the United States. You have no answer for why it shouldn't be done, except to defend the phony "job creators" among the wealthy who economists have proven do not create jobs.

I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government. Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though.

Originally Posted by smc

Imagine if higher education were free in the United States, like it has largely been in most of the rest of the industrialized world. Imagine the innovative spirit of the United States coupled with a highly educated workforce. Imagine paying for this by not building a few aircraft carriers or suspending a few other wasteful defense contracts.

Oh, my god ... that might be SOCIALISM!!!!

I don't care if education is free as long as it's quality education. That would be great. But face facts. We can't afford it. And get real, we're not going to do it by dropping our defenses.

Originally Posted by smc

Why you would choose to be an apologist for Adam Carolla, who says absolutely nothing in his rant to distinguish one Occupier from another, and who paints the entire Millenial generation with his broad brush, is beyond my comprehension ... unless you really do agree with him.

I'm not an apologist for Adam Carolla. If I were I'd defend him against all the other crap you say he says.

Originally Posted by smc

Yeah, well, I would recommend listening again before you again support anything that he says. Do you think his kind of "criticism" is actually productive? What if I just ranted and said the following about every person who works on Wall Street

Or what if you wrote like you always write on here.

By the way, to others reading this exchange, I would like to remind everyone, and I know I speak for smc as well on this, remember forum rule 4: Do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Do not threaten or put down other users. We strive to make this a friendly place.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You wouldn't tolerate this from me, so I won't tolerate it from you.

You're wrong about that. Say it to me, any time, and I will defend what I state and would challenge you to meet me in public, on a stage, and even come to where you are to wipe the floor with you in an honest debate

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Did I say you did? I said it's already been tried by Obama.

Now, you cleverly implied it. As you well know, there is both denotation AND connotation in language.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Accuse others of what you do. Do not stick words in my mouth. Or perhaps you'd like to quote where I said there's a direct link between failure of Obama's bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate.

See my answer just above. You do this all the time, Tracy, and it's transparent to everyone who reads your posts. It's okay to do it -- that is, to make implications -- but when you have no argument to back them up why can't you just drop it instead of playing the "I-didn't-say-those-exact-words-and-I-dare-you-to-quote-me" game? Wouldn't a real discussion be better served by either backing up your statements or admitting that you can't?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government. Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though.

Throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there's waste. We should focus on doing these things correctly, not on NOT doing them because our government doesn't do the right things. But I realize that if you don't want to do the hard work in a discussion of figuring out how to find common ground and consensus and actually do something constructive, it's a lot easier to write your last sentence just above.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't care if education is free as long as it's quality education. That would be great. But face facts. We can't afford it. And get real, we're not going to do it by dropping our defenses.

We could drop the "offense" part and do just find. But in any case, we have the money to provide free education otherwise, too. It's all about priorities and whether profits for corporations and an uneven playing field for the rich come first.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm not an apologist for Adam Carolla. If I were I'd defend him against all the other crap you say he says.

Nice dodge. An apologist is someone makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, and so on. You legitimize Carolla's rant as reasonable discourse in the way you presented it here to the Forum, thus functioning as an apologist for it. My statement had nothing to do with anything else he has said. As is so often the case, though, you already knew that.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Or what if you wrote like you always write on here.

By the way, to others reading this exchange, I would like to remind everyone, and I know I speak for smc as well on this, remember forum rule 4: Do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Do not threaten or put down other users. We strive to make this a friendly place.

And now, dear readers who may be following this exchange, we come to the part where Tracy Coxx whines that he has been attacked personally. The last defense of Tracy Coxx is to reproduce Forum Rule 4 at the end of a discussion when Tracy Coxx cannot debate on the substance of issues. Spend a few minutes finding all the other times Tracy Coxx has done this, and you will get a real education in what the opposite of constructive discourse is all about.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You're wrong about that. Say it to me, any time, and I will defend what I state and would challenge you to meet me in public, on a stage, and even come to where you are to wipe the floor with you in an honest debate

I don't know how you are in real life, but I have enough experience on here to know what happens on the forum.

Originally Posted by smc

Now, you cleverly implied it. As you well know, there is both denotation AND connotation in language.

No. You are imagining things. I said what I said and that is what I meant, which is only that it has already been tried by Obama. Again you're debating what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by smc

See my answer just above. You do this all the time, Tracy, and it's transparent to everyone who reads your posts. It's okay to do it -- that is, to make implications -- but when you have no argument to back them up why can't you just drop it instead of playing the "I-didn't-say-those-exact-words-and-I-dare-you-to-quote-me" game? Wouldn't a real discussion be better served by either backing up your statements or admitting that you can't?

And there you go again.

Originally Posted by smc

Throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there's waste. We should focus on doing these things correctly, not on NOT doing them because our government doesn't do the right things. But I realize that if you don't want to do the hard work in a discussion of figuring out how to find common ground and consensus and actually do something constructive, it's a lot easier to write your last sentence just above.

And yet again, you're debating what you THINK I'm saying. I explicitly said "I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government." Followed by "Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though." From this you conclude that I don't want these projects to be done by the government when I said the opposite. Yes there's waste, but I never said I wanted the government to stop working on infrastructure. It's so exasperating debating not only the actual issues that come up on this forum, but defending myself against what you imagine I'm saying as well.

Originally Posted by smc

We could drop the "offense" part and do just find. But in any case, we have the money to provide free education otherwise, too. It's all about priorities and whether profits for corporations and an uneven playing field for the rich come first.

Uh, no we don't. We're over $14 trillion in debt.

Originally Posted by smc

Nice dodge. An apologist is someone makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, and so on. You legitimize Carolla's rant ...

But that's not what you said. You said I am an Adam Carolla apologist after informing everyone about what else Adam supports, not an apologist for the one rant I posted.

Originally Posted by smc

And now, dear readers who may be following this exchange, we come to the part where Tracy Coxx whines that he has been attacked personally. The last defense of Tracy Coxx is to reproduce Forum Rule 4 at the end of a discussion when Tracy Coxx cannot debate on the substance of issues.

What's to debate here? There's either your diatribes that are devoid of any real content or your debating your illusions of what I'm saying.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Uh, no we don't. We're over $14 trillion in debt..

Thankyou W, as 1/3 of that is from his wonderful taxcuts for the the super rich
Then W put in two unfunded wars
Remember when W and his Vice said the Iraq war will be paid for out of oil profits
Iraq hasn't paid one damn dime

We can't afford to rebulid US roads or fix our schools but we can afford to rebulid Iraq WTF?????
Funny how the GOP never gives a damn about debt when they are in the White house they only start screaming about it when a Dem is in the white house they never said diddly about the debt Reagan ran up with his trickle down they only cared when Clinton was in office
When W stole the Whitehouse he was given a balanced budget and a surplus and with in his first three months both were long gone and the GOP said nothing as he started a massive debit the GOP didn't say diddly until Obama got the Whitehouse and for his whole term that's all they scream about and yet they refuse to end the Bush tax cuts which would do away with a big chunk of it
If they were serious about the debt the tax cuts would have been the first to go
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't know how you are in real life, but I have enough experience on here to know what happens on the forum.

No. You are imagining things. I said what I said and that is what I meant, which is only that it has already been tried by Obama. Again you're debating what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm saying.

And there you go again.

And yet again, you're debating what you THINK I'm saying. I explicitly said "I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government." Followed by "Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though." From this you conclude that I don't want these projects to be done by the government when I said the opposite. Yes there's waste, but I never said I wanted the government to stop working on infrastructure. It's so exasperating debating not only the actual issues that come up on this forum, but defending myself against what you imagine I'm saying as well.

I stand by what I wrote about implications, denotations, and connotations. Otherwise, I would have to accept that on the one hand you are the only person I've ever come across who never, ever implies or connotes in communication, while on the other hand you partake in using the same approaches to language that other humans use. And that doesn't fit with anything I know about communication or anything I have ever encountered in all my years of dealing professionally with communication.

I'll let others to draw their own conclusions.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Uh, no we don't. We're over $14 trillion in debt.

Debt is restructured all the time. It would be easy enough for the United States to nationalize the banks to whom debt is owed and deal with it that way ... for just one example of how it could be handled. Extending your logic, we should spend no money until everything is balanced. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But that's not what you said. You said I am an Adam Carolla apologist after informing everyone about what else Adam supports, not an apologist for the one rant I posted.

Nice try, Tracy. I presume you count on others not following the exchange as closely so that you can dissemble in this manner.

I wrote the following:

"Why you would choose to be an apologist for Adam Carolla, who says absolutely nothing in his rant to distinguish one Occupier from another, and who paints the entire Millenial generation with his broad brush, is beyond my comprehension ... unless you really do agree with him."

My charge was specifically about the rant, as you well know. The information about other things Carolla has done/said was introduced quite specifically as follows:

"By the way, for those readers who do not know, Adam Carolla is a TV and radio host who has notoriously attacked ethnic groups and women, and now the entire Millenial generation, with useless name-calling that is inappropriate at best and is highly offensive and that has no place in civil discourse at worst. Here are a few examples: ..."

That is, it was there to put him in context for everyone else. I did not make an assumption that you knew anything else about him, nor did I make an assumption that you were his best friend, nor did I assume anything in between about your connection to Adam Carolla.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What's to debate here? There's either your diatribes that are devoid of any real content or your debating your illusions of what I'm saying.

I have nothing more to say about this rule that you keep bringing up. If you think I violate it and insult you directly rather than attacking your political positions and the method in which you dissemble to present them, contact the site owner as you have done in the past. We'll take it from there.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Debt is restructured all the time. It would be easy enough for the United States to nationalize the banks to whom debt is owed and deal with it that way ... for just one example of how it could be handled. Extending your logic, we should spend no money until everything is balanced. Good luck with that.

And good luck to you with your assumption that I would like the US to spend nothing until the debt is payed off. As usual you mischaracterize your opponents arguments to something ridiculous and try and claim victory over this artificial position. Rock on with that strawman argument smc.

Originally Posted by smc

I'll let others to draw their own conclusions.

Over the time you and I have been debating (what is it, a decade? seems like it...) they have drawn their own conclusions and I'm hearing support from them. Of course most of them won't say anything here. They're at least smart enough to know better.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And good luck to you with your assumption that I would like the US to spend nothing until the debt is payed off. As usual you mischaracterize your opponents arguments to something ridiculous and try and claim victory over this artificial position. Rock on with that strawman argument smc.

As usual, you accuse me of what you do. I didn't mischaracterize YOUR position. I extended your logic on my own.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Over the time you and I have been debating (what is it, a decade? seems like it...) they have drawn their own conclusions and I'm hearing support from them. Of course most of them won't say anything here. They're at least smart enough to know better.

I get between 100 and 200 PMs a day supporting my positions in our exchanges.

Oh, see how easy it is on the Internet to claim anything.

But I do give you credit for the last sentence, and its implication. Of course, as we know from an earlier post, your words never have implication or connotation.

Why don't you tell us precisely what you would cut to balance the budget, and how much.