[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX wrote:

Oh hell, I could post massive evidence for polls supporting the science behind global warming and the need for government action (even if people don't agree what action should be taken).

And I could post you polls showing how that attitude is starting to change. Here's why...



The global warming issue is currently on the bottom of the list of things people are concerned about.

If however you start attacking people's pocket books, and personal liberties with destructive mega-bills you find the populace starts to get interested, and once they get the full information, you'll find the polls change radically, much as they did in the UK.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/i ... -the-rise/

That's why when you poll specifically on the crap and tax mega-bill you get a negative result.

Quote:

My point was that you can't use polls to support your argument that Obama is doing it wrong when you so clearly claim that regardless of polls the world is not only wrong about global warming but that they are wrong in the way they are addressing it.

And for the third, and starting to wonder if there's a reading problem here, time, I'm not saying polls prove Obama is doing wrong. Facts prove that. I'm saying (again for the third time) progressives only care about "democracy", when the polls favor their side. They don't say "let's vote on the 2 mega-bills". They know they'd lose. They say Obama won the election, so he should be allowed to pass his destructive mega-bills without any kind of vocal opposition. That's what they mean by democracy.

(If you're wondering where they say that, it's in the link to the article I mentioned which set you off. I'm starting to suspect you didn't read it. That's cool, but why let it get to you, then?)

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

And I could post you polls showing how that attitude is starting to change. Here's why...

The global warming issue is currently on the bottom of the list of things people are concerned about.

Irrelevant since you aren't addressing my salient point which is this: You can't claim poll opposition to Obamacare constitutes proof of why he is wrong when you reject the idea that polls showing support for global warming and the need for action is incorrect.

N_Fiddledog wrote:

If however you start attacking people's pocket books, and personal liberties with destructive mega-bills you find the populace starts to get interested, and once they get the full information, you'll find the polls change radically, much as they did in the UK.

Much like the truth over Iraq that didn't stop bush? Much like the massive hit to US pocketbooks that the overblown military and wars hit? You see while you righties seem to be getting your panties in a bunch over the cost of health care reform and/or climate change you should realize that it is but a fraction of the cost of the wars you don't seem to be protesting against.

Now while your little graph seems damning to you it in fact ignores the reality that while uninformed public skepticism is on the rise due to negative press the clear majority still believe the scientific facts of global warming:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... imate-poll

Quote:

Overall around nine out of 10 people questioned still appear to accept some degree of global warming.

What matter most is that the majority of the public support the facts of global warming and the need for action and that the overwhelming scientific opinion backs it.

Don't use polls in one argument if you won't support them in others.

N_Fiddledog wrote:

That's why when you poll specifically on the crap and tax mega-bill you get a negative result.

Yet when you poll specifically on global warming you get a positive result. People just disagree on what should be done and the reason cap and trade fails is because it promotes a system where some polluters are allowed to continue and others should be tasked with fixing the problem.

Of course that polls negatively with the regions tasked with fixing the problem which coincidentally are the polls you quote.

In fact a majority of Americans still believe global warming is real and must be fought, at least as many that oppose Obamacare.

N_Fiddledog wrote:

And for the third, and starting to wonder if there's a reading problem here, time, I'm not saying polls prove Obama is doing wrong. Facts prove that. I'm saying (again for the third time) progressives only care about "democracy", when the polls favor their side. They don't say "let's vote on the 2 mega-bills". They know they'd lose. They say Obama won the election, so he should be allowed to pass his destructive mega-bills without any kind of vocal opposition.

(If you're wondering where they say that, it's in the link to the article I mentioned which set you off. I'm starting to suspect you didn't read it. That's cool, but why let it get to you, then?)

yeah, you did. You posted poll evidence as support that Obama was doing it wrong. I've read that arguments. In fact I live them since I work in the health care (and a private lab at that) and we discuss health care topics oddly enough. You are relying on polls because there are few facts to be had.

"Progressives" only care about democracy when it suits them? Do you think you are different?

Obama thinks he can pass legislation because he is the president and the democrats hold a majority in the house. They can pass the bill through reconciliation but oddly enough they aren't ramming it through. If I were the president with a majority vote in the house the bill would already be law.

The fact you consider it a "mega-destructive" bill simply shows your partisanship and eliminates any thought that you are trying for a democratic view. Did not my post about how close this bill is to the republican one an health care show just how undestructive this will be.

I also refer you to my previous post showing that you are among those assigning an unfair degree of certainty to the higher cost estimates of the republican drones.

Will you also support democracy in Canada when you realize that in a true democratic/majority situation the CPC will never ever be able to pass anything really conservative since the clear majority in Canada is leftist?

[Proculation]

Polls also say people want to work less and earn more. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX wrote:

You can't claim poll opposition to Obamacare constitutes proof of why he is wrong

OK one more time, for the fourth, and hopefully final time. I have never claimed that.

This mad pursuit of strawmen, began on page 2, when I merely pointed out the progressives are now trying to get something going called "coffee parties".

I gave you this link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

You didn't read it. If you had you would have read this...

Quote:

It is not Us against the Govt. It is democracy vs corporatocracy

You would then have understood my point...

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Question: Why is it when progressives talk about "democracy", what they mean is exclusively those times they have the majority. Polls show the American people are against the mega-bills, like the current Democratic Healthcare bills, and Cap n Tax, but that's not what they mean by democracy. They mean carte blanche for whatever Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can dream up, until 2010 to 2012 when they start to disappear, then "democracy" will mean something else.

I don't know man. How can I make that more clear?

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

You can't claim poll opposition to Obamacare constitutes proof of why he is wrong

OK one more time, for the fourth, and hopefully final time. I have never claimed that.

This mad pursuit of strawmen, began on page 2, when I merely pointed out the progressives are now trying to get something going called "coffee parties".

I gave you this link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

You didn't read it. If you had you would have read this...

Quote:

It is not Us against the Govt. It is democracy vs corporatocracy

You would then have understood my point...

And again I'll point out this:

Quote:

DerbyX: Oh, btw the public support thing you mentioned before (on another thread) and like to tout about proof over how wrong Obamas health care bill is.


N-fiddledog: Which? You mean polls like these...

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

I also reference the other times you have referenced polls concerning Obamacare.

Again though, I feel the need to point out that Obamacare is all about choice and democracy and against corporatocracy. Hell the critics call it socialism. HTH can you call that corporatocracy? In fact how can you capitalist even use this as a critique (let alone a word)?

N_Fiddledog wrote:

I don't know man. How can I make that more clear?

Understand that it isn't about democracy but about partisanship.

What about my point of democracy in Canada? You are claiming to be Canadian right? I ask this because I rarely see you post in Canadian political threads unless its about global warming but see you post more then any US CKAer in the US threads.

[N_Fiddledog]

Glenn Beck makes an interesting point. It's not mine. It's Becks. I don't even know if it's accurate.

He claims progressive's use of the word "democracy", is a trick to distract from what he claims is the fact America is a Republic, and as such puts primary stress on the rule of law as laid out in their constitution. Progressive's, he claims, ignore that, and look for bits and pieces of the argument they might be able to support with the magic word democracy, when convenient.

DerbyX wrote:

Again though, I feel the need to point out that Obamacare is all about choice and democracy and against corporatocracy. Hell the critics call it socialism. HTH can you call that corporatocracy? In fact how can you capitalist even use this as a critique (let alone a word)?

Silly Derby...it was the Progressive who made that comment about democracy (progressives) being against corporatocracy (her word, and I assume meaning capitalism). Seriously read the article. It's not difficult, and will aid you in your pursuit of a clue.

[Thanos]

Anyone relying on polling, no matter which side they're on, isn't making an argument anyway. They're just going "ha-ha! our numberz rule, ur numbers sux!". It's a childish tactic and should be denounced by real adults everywhere.

But, back to the main argument. Why all the anti-government hate right now. Well:

1) Americans are an extremist and reactive people, and it really isn't all that difficult to get them riled up to an extent that's radically out of proportion to any of the actual problems they are currently facing.
2) Modern ideologues and demogogues are incredibly skilled at their jobs, and their only real purpose in the system is to keep things agitated.
3) Dolchstoss syndrome, thanks to right-wing radio/TV/internet propaganda outlets, is infecting the United States to a degree that has rarely (if ever) been seen before.
4) While in government, the Republicans were decidedly pro-big government. While in opposition they falsely spread the mythology that they are pro-small government. A brief reading of history would easily reveal this to be a lie but, hey, Americans don't do history anymore. It's boring, unless it's presented in the easy-to-digest manner as exemplified by noted "historians" such as Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg.
5) Blaming others, especially the government, for all your own problems and personal failings, is easy. And, for some strange reason, incredibly self-satisfying too.
6) Hatred is fun, especially in a crowd of nutcases that feel exactly the same as you do. It's a fucked-up way of expressing a sense of community, but it is a form of community regardless. And, for all you perpetually terrified Beck-heads out there, community does not exactly rhyme with communism.

Lots more, but this is all I could think of short-term. Now "fuck off, I've got work to do" (Cyrus).

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada wrote:

How about a Maximum wage? It would be a very high point, and well past the point of what would leave a family incredibly well off for their lives. You, of course, would disagree with me and my semi-support of guaranteed incomes, so what of some bargaining on the issue. Since I completely oppose the idea that no minimum wage is at all helping the Income Gap shrink.

A maximum wage may as well also be a cap on individual productivity.

If I'm only allowed to make a certain amount of income every year then I guarandamtee you that once I hit that mark I'm taking the rest of the year off.

For what I do I doubt I'd be missed.

But you and yours are fucked when neurosurgeons and etc. follow my lead. You're also going to be bored when the hockey season only lasts a week due to wage limits.

And with a maximum wage you're addressing the 'income gap' by making certain people poorer. So the people who are really poor might not be as envious as they used to be but the net result of your policy is that it won't do shit to pay the rent or to put food on the table for the genuinely poor. Worse, because rich people won't be able to afford yachts, private jets, and personal employees you'll be putting shitloads of people out of work who right now depend on the rich for their livelyhoods.

Freedom naturally produces a diversity of outcomes as represented by income and this is NOT a problem. Productive, creative people earn more because they do the things that need to happen so they can succeed. If you put a cap on what those people can earn just because it makes you feel better then you can count on those people to stop producing.

You end up with a pre-collapse Soviet Union or the failed pre-industrial China - and both of those "worker's paradises" spent decades depending on the USA and Canada for most of their food because their collective farms didn't produce jack shit. One American or Canadian farmer typically produces food for about 1,500 people. Chinese and Russian farmers (circa 1990) usually had an output sufficient for 3-4 people. Meaning they depended on the excess of Canada and the USA or they'd starve.

Class envy is a failed concept. It just doesn't work and it's the hallmark of a loser who can't succeed in the world. You're better than that and I mean that quite seriously.

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

He claims progressive's use of the word "democracy", is a trick to distract from what he claims is the fact America is a Republic, and as such puts primary stress on the rule of law as laid out in their constitution. Progressive's, he claims, ignore that, and look for bits and pieces of the argument they might be able to support with the magic word democracy, when convenient.

Stop. You failed at "Beck".

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Silly Derby...it was the Progressive who made that comment about democracy (progressives) being against corporatocracy (her word, and I assume meaning capitalism). Seriously read the article. It's not difficult, and will aid you in your pursuit of a clue.

Since you obviously haven't read or attempted to understand Obamas bill what footing do you think you have?

Do you understand how and why our system puts exceedingly more health care dollars into actual health care? You keep resorting to a single video of a single persons critique yet fail to realize that there are far more against the current US system that Obamacare was designed to fix.

Bonus question: How does the way Ontario bill lab tests save Ontarians over 75 million per year in actual dollars and over 100 million more in comparative dollars?

Do your homework.

[BartSimpson]

Proculation wrote:

Polls also say people want to work less and earn more. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'm working mostly four days a week anymore and I'm earning more money than *ever* when I was working five and six days a week. Trust me, it's a fucking FABULOUS idea!!!

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX wrote:

You are claiming to be Canadian right? I ask this because I rarely see you post in Canadian political threads unless its about global warming but see you post more then any US CKAer in the US threads.

You know what you should do then? You should address your fears and suspicions to a mod. Tell them you suspect there's an evil American pretending to be a Canadian.

You, being never wrong, of course, will no doubt be proven correct, and justice will be done.

Or wait...seeing as you're not the first to whine about this, don't you think they might have already checked?

I'm liking American politics these days. It's an interesting subject. So sue me.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

3)Dolchstoss syndrome, thanks to right-wing radio/TV/internet propaganda outlets, is infecting the United States to a degree that has rarely (if ever) been seen before.

Of course, left wingers are ever-so-polite in the way they advance their ideas.



Especially compared to those violent, right-wing fanatics.



Just look at those right-wingers all dressed in black, scowling and attacking the police! Oh...wait...

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

You are claiming to be Canadian right? I ask this because I rarely see you post in Canadian political threads unless its about global warming but see you post more then any US CKAer in the US threads.

You know what you should do then? You should address your fears and suspicions to a mod. Tell them you suspect there's an evil American pretending to be a Canadian.

You, being never wrong, of course, will no doubt be proven correct, and justice will be done.

Or wait...seeing as you're not the first to whine about this, don't you think they might have already checked?

I'm liking American politics these days. It's an interesting subject. So sue me.

First off. being an American isn't wrong.

Second, for somebody who posts so absolutely about his opinions you are certainly no one to cry about somebody doing the same.

I've heard a lot of crying on this forum about Canadians bitching about the US except when they are clearly blind republican supporters.

[Thanos]

No, but at least the lefties go toe-to-toe with riot cops who are able to fight back. As opposed to righties that do things like blowing up federal buildings that have day care centers on the bottom floor. Or lynching as many darkies as they can catch.

But I forgot, it's not "terrorism" if it's done out of love of country. Blood of patriots and tyrants, you say? You betcha! Yay for us!

[Mr_Canada]

BartSimpson wrote:

A maximum wage may as well also be a cap on individual productivity.

If I'm only allowed to make a certain amount of income every year then I guarandamtee you that once I hit that mark I'm taking the rest of the year off.

For what I do I doubt I'd be missed.

But you and yours are fucked when neurosurgeons and etc. follow my lead. You're also going to be bored when the hockey season only lasts a week due to wage limits.

Alright. So what do you propose? I don't think sports stars deserve millions either, and I opposed both sides during the lockout. Greedy, pathetic. I believe people should work because they *want* to do what they are doing. Not being forced to do with it with a carrot known as money. It's part of what I disagree with in our society. I absolutely despise people who work years and years to get to a point where they would say "What, a fraction less? Well fuck this."

Quote:

And with a maximum wage you're addressing the 'income gap' by making certain people poorer. So the people who are really poor might not be as envious as they used to be but the net result of your policy is that it won't do shit to pay the rent or to put food on the table for the genuinely poor. Worse, because rich people won't be able to afford yachts, private jets, and personal employees you'll be putting shitloads of people out of work who right now depend on the rich for their livelyhoods.

Excellent debunking, I never cared for the theory anyway. Then what of taxation? You don't believe in that either, correct? This leaves us at a massive impasse. The system isn't working but no one seems to want to make it better. Millions are poor and a couple hundred are rich.

Quote:

You end up with a pre-collapse Soviet Union or the failed pre-industrial China - and both of those "worker's paradises" spent decades depending on the USA and Canada for most of their food because their collective farms didn't produce jack shit. One American or Canadian farmer typically produces food for about 1,500 people. Chinese and Russian farmers (circa 1990) usually had an output sufficient for 3-4 people. Meaning they depended on the excess of Canada and the USA or they'd starve.

Since I agree about the cap, I'm simply going to argue that China and Russia were shitholes before Faux-Communism hit, and they still are.

Quote:

Class envy is a failed concept. It just doesn't work and it's the hallmark of a loser who can't succeed in the world. You're better than that and I mean that quite seriously.

So, again, we are just leaving the system as is?

I apologize, but I simply can't accept a compliment when I strongly believe that my country can be better than what it is. I personally don't consider the poor to be losers.

I refuse to believe that greed and stepping on the hands and necks of other human beings is part of Human Nature or otherwise ever appropriate or acceptable. Something needs to be done, and I don't mind if something completely different from my opinions has to happen.