Cugalabanza

He was not in fact talking about recorded history. He was talking about the age of the Earth itself. And in Rubio's defense, he never actually said he believed the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old. He simply said that it's a "great mystery" and that different perspectives (biblical and otherwise) should be considered. [EDIT] Rubio's actual words: “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. “At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.” Link

Take it easy, man, it's just a discussion. Why don't you put your conservative vocabulary flash cards away for a little while. I'm sorry I ever suggested that you and TYTT could be the same poster. He actually has something to say. You're like the Chester to his Spike.

ah, dialectic

I cannot argue with this. Two (bogus, in my opionion) wars cost us quite a bit. How do feel about cutting military spending? Also, if we're talking about entitlements, you have to include corporate welfare too, no?

Because I don't have time and it's a stupid argument. The idea that God's will includes babies born from rape or that a rape victim's body has a way to try and shut that whole thing down... these are serious to me. Too many conservative minded people have wasted way too much breath trying to deny science (e.g., evolution, global warming). Marco Rubio recently indicated that he believes the Earth could be less than 10,000 years old. Look, I'm not denying that Democrats say stupid ****. I'm saying that Republicans say stupid **** too. And you're fighting me on this. Unnecessarily. To me it's proof that you will fight about literally anything that comes from what you perceive as the enemy. No. I said above that spending cuts are necessary too. A tax increase on the wealthy is only a small part.

I'm not a democrat, but I like their plan better. I think it's reasonable for the wealthy to pay a slightly higher income tax rate. There is a historical precedent for this. The rates being called for are still lower than under Reagan. I also happen to believe that spending cuts are necessary too. I think military spending is way too high. We spend more than the next 19 nations combined. There may also need to be cuts to some entitlements. I agree with conservatives that the debt cannot be ignored. However, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Democrats are more to blame for this. Like Obama, I support a balanced approach. Middle class: taxes should remain at current levels. Any increase would be harmful to growth & consumer confidence. A reduction is not responsible considering the budget problems. I do support Obamacare. In fact, I'm in favor of a single payer (Medicare for all) system. I know it's a big cost and it centralizes something that many people prefer kept in the private sector. I think in the long run, it would be a huge benefit to the middle class. I know you'll probably disagree with me on all this. There are philosophical differences and I'm familiar with the arguments. It's my take that the Republicans have been, above all, about protecting the wealth of the wealthy. And they've done a very good job. The economy didn't crash because rich people were hurting. Wealth inequality is greater now than ever. The stock market looks great. The bankers came out smelling like roses. It's the middle class people that are carrying the weight of this recession. I think it's reasonable to expect the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a quick fix to this recovery. I think things are just picking up now. I think we'll keep seeing improvements in employment, growth and housing and things will get better greadually. I believe though that we are on the right track.

Oh, you gotta be kidding me. Quayle, Bush2, Palin, Mourdock, Akin, Walsh, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum. I'll be very generous and say that both sides say dumb crap. Why I think the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey: Like TTYT said, he's fungible. No value added. Disposable. If a cheaper alternative is available, take it. That's the corporate mentality. People are raw material. Rob is a tool, a part in the machine. The most important thing the machine makes is wealth for the people at the top. I believe that the Republican party does not have Rob's interest at heart. They'd send his job overseas in a second. This is a philosophical difference and I know you will always disagree. All the rhetoric about job creators. It boils down to supply side economics (aka, Reaganomics, aka trickle-down theory). It's been disproven historically. All that kind of system leads to is a dangerous wealth disparity.

If you wanna make a list of dumb things politicians say, we could fill 20 pages in a new thread. Are you suggesting that one party has a monopoly on idiotic statements? Do I think the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey? Pretty much, yes.

I think you should direct your question to TYTT. Maybe he can tell you how the Republican party, which thinks of you as a monkey, a tool, a part in a machine (in a business sense) wants to help you. They've recruited you (as a tool once again) to help them further their own agenda, which is not for the benefit of the working man, I assure you.

I think it is. I think it implies a perceived hierarchy. These are statements in support of your central point... that you're better, more valuable, that your opinions carry more weight. Those people you refer to as fungible parts in the machine...their voices do not matter because they lack the special privelaged point of view that only you and a few other special people have.

Where did I say I begrudge anyone their money? The only one implying a hierarchy is TYTT himself. Go back and read some of the things he says about working people in this thread.

It is about sacrifice. If money is what drives you most, you tend to find yourself with a lot of it. I happen to be sort of a scattered personality. My time and energy get spent in all kinds of directions. That's how I like it. Some other people focus on business and often do very well for themselves. Either way of living is equally valid. It's TYTT's arrogant tone that rubs people the wrong way. He definitely suggests that his money makes him better than other people. I want to point out that there are lots of people who work just as hard and in some cases contribute more to society, but do not make as much money. Those lives are just as important as Mr. Real Estate Bigshot.

Please, let's use the proper nomenclature. You started to sound a little commie there.

Making money is easy when it it's all you care about.

No, he said FLAG. I think you missed the L in there. Anyway, that's how Hitler used to do it. DING DING DING!!! What do I win?

Hey tgreg, you distract him by calling him an intellectually dishonest whiny little baby and I'll go around back to take all his stuff so we can go give it to all the lazy ethnic people.

I said already, in this thread, that it’s not a mandate. Still, it is a significant piece of barganing power. I really don’t understand why you guys are denying this. It’s not a controversial point. Besides, turnout was pretty good historically speaking. Something like 57 percent. Certainly higher than for Bush’s two victories—one of which was without the popular majority. Do you think a higher turnout would have favored the Republicans? I don’t.

That's kind of like saying the Bills are 4 and 7 but that's just because of a couple dropped balls and some bad play calling. Really they should be 6 and 5 and in the playoff hunt. The fact is they're 4 and 7 and they're just about cooked as far as the playoffs go. And the reason is that they didn't do well enough. More facts: The Democratic President won re-election and it wasn't close. Democrats are up 2 in the Senate and 5 in the House. You think the Republican leadership is pointing fingers and saying "what did we do wrong, what do we have to do to turn this around?" because they think they did well? I'll let you have the last word. You can tell me I'm wrong again. But you can't change the facts.

Actually, I'm right. Dem President re-elected by a comfortable margin. Dems plus 2 in the Senate and plus 5 in the House. The voice of the majority is there and carries some weight.

Ok, maybe it's overstated. But it is worth something significant at the negotiating table. More than anything else, this presidential election was about two different views of our economy. It's not a mandate one way or another, but it can't be ignored. And "level of understanding?" I'd say that's a variable that is unavoidable. Ignorance and misunderstanding exists on both sides of the argument. I think it comes out even. Anyway, at the heart of this argument, it's not that complicated. Comes down to something fundamental about people on both sides.

That’s a good point, but your example of context seems incomplete. It’s like if you were having an argument with a woman. You say that you want to have sex with her 25 times. She says she wants to get a court order forcing you to move to a different county. She might be willing to compromise by saying that you get to maintain your residence in the same county, but you are not allowed within 300 feet of her residence. You might initially complain that it’s not a compromise because you have given up your position entirely. However, if more context is given which reveals that you have been pestering this poor woman and stalking her for years, then it seems reasonable and it becomes clear that both sides have made some concessions which are appropriate. Another example of additional context might be a recent election in which the majority of voters have chosen one particular fiscal vision over another. This particular contextual element is called leverage.

It was your own pet word that you misused. It was in the thread you started, "The biggest loser out of this election could be the electorate." Replies #3 and #6. And now you're the one who's saying, "When haven't you put up a canard?" I think you need to dust off your dictionary. I want everything handed to me? What the hell are you talking about? I've never had anything handed to me. That's your own crazy talking (screaming) point. It has no basis in reality. It's a canard. I agree with you here. It's a good point. It's better to let light shine on crazy. Hide it away and it grows like a fungus.

A canard is by definition a false statement, groundless, intentionally misleading. I made some statements in another thread which you referred to as canards. They were true statements. I don't know for sure what your intent was, but I think you meant to suggest that my statements were trivially true in a way that diverted the focus of the argument. When haven't I put up a canard? I don't know. I don't think I've posted anything untrue around here. Points of contention, sure. Differences of opinion and perspective, yes. Maybe you could give an example of a canard that I have posted. I don't think you will find one. Please forgive my typo. Obviously, I meant to type "think," not "thing." I hope it didn't confuse you too much.