[thatguy1]

Holy post!

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by burgerflipper

Holy post!

It's a novel, not a post!

[Omahabound]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I don't know how you can differentiate. It's all borrowed money.

Scale. Magnitude.

Let's suppose I met someone at a coffe shop. We sit around and talk and have some rather compelling conversations. I find out the guy works in the same big corporation as me but in another division on another floor. We talk about talking to each other some time at work. I go to get another coffe and he follows. I pay for mine but after ordering his, he realizes he's out of money and he doesn't carry credit cards (just play along). I say, "don't worry" I'll cover it for you and pay the $3 for his coffee.

Let's start the scenario over. I met this guy at the coffee shop. We sit around and talk and have some rather compelling conversations. I find out the guy works in the same big corporation as me but in another division on another floor. We discuss how he's living paycheck to paycheck because he's recently been divorced and while he was married he and his wife spent without restraint. Their utilities were shut off, their house was foreclosed on, and still they spent. I feel sorry for the guy but I understand he's a big boy and he has to take responsibility for his actions. I go to get a refill on my coffee and he asks if I wouldn't mind getting him a cup too. I think, "Why not, he's a decent guy, he's just stupid with his money." As we sit back down he looks outside and get's upset. I'm ask him what's the matter and he says, "That's the repo guy taking off with my car. I've been avoiding him like the plague." I tell him I feel sorry for him and I can at least give him a ride home. Once there he asks if I wouldn't mind lending him some money to make up back payments on his car and oh, by the way, this is his mom's house and she's going to throw him out so can I give him some money for a hotel room too. And on and on with no end in sight and no plan on how to pay the money back were I to lend it.

I'll spot someone a coffee without much reservation but someone who takes responsilibity and has a plan might even warrant a loan. A free spender who has no plan and takes no responsibility for his actions won't get anything from me. If they take it from me, I will protest. And if they take more than I can somewhat quickly repay and thus indebt me and my family for our natural lives, well then we have a real problem.

I "protested" against the money Bush spent. I think it's time to go s tep further because the conditions are even worse.

So true, no matter who borrowed it.

You seem to imply that since we loan one entity money we are somehow compelled to loan everyone money.

Y'know, I was a college student during the Viet Nam protests, and who's paying for this, who's behind it was constantly being said. This is nothing new.

You, then, have greater life experience with protests than I do. Maybe you can tell me if there is any difference at all.

Is it the same to go into poor neighborhoods, gather people who have little to no education or understanding of politics, and pay them to protest as it is to pay for a venue (locally-required security, insurance, permits, sound/video equipment) and allow attendees to get the word out via the web?

The numbers are not clear yet; one of FOX News' henchmen was broadcasting (hosting?) in Atlanta. Only a few hundred showed up in Boston and Philly.

Since you seem to have contempt for Fox news, perhaps you can provide a list of trustworthy news sources.

I've heard word of 250,000 nationwide with 500 in Boston and 200 in Philadelphia. 250,000 seems pretty significant and usually when you have someone organizing and paying for a protest, they're smart with their money. They don't do it nationwide, rather they organize it in a single large population center to get the best bang for their buck.

There are a number of threads on Politics and Other Controversies discussing the tea parties.

Was there a final count for Omaha/Paplillion?

For whatever the web is worth...
Papillion 150
Omaha 1,500

[Omahabound]

Originally Posted by Katiana

It's a novel, not a post!

Yeah, I try and respond to people's several points instead of throwing a bunch of spearate and distinct ideas into a single paragraph and only addressing one or two and pretending they made no other points.

[thatguy1]

Originally Posted by Omahabound

Yeah, I try and respond to people's several points instead of throwing a bunch of spearate and distinct ideas into a single paragraph and only addressing one or two and pretending they made no other points.

Oh, damn you. You gave away my secret. That's how I get around making any complete and valid arguments

[mattpoulsen]

Oh for god's sake. Yes i read through your novel, but I don't have the time to go through every last point. My style is to actually write a comprehensible post, focusing on the primary arguments of the poster, in a manner that most who have taken junior high grammar can follow! Sorry, next time maybe I'll write it in a line by line disjointed mess.

My original point is the people at the TEA PARTIES are being mislead. Yes, I noted that you didn't listen to rush...but in the same breath you also told me that I should listen to him and not just condemn him...interesting considering you don't listen to him.

Bottom line is the Tea Partiers weren't here during the Bush administration. And if not for Fox News these things wouldn't have existed. The news organizations who call themselves such are supposed to report the news...NOT generate it and orchestrate it.

Moreover, you keep going back to claiming I'm not a conservative and you base that, in part, on me not supporting republicans!! That attitude is EXACTLY what is wrong with ALL politics. How is complaining about republicans divisive?? I have no problem with political discourse...just not in the tasteless manner in which the republican party does it now. I'm absolutely a conservative...I just am not beholden to a small, but controlling, portion of the republican party. There is a difference between being a financial conservative and a republican. I am a republican now, but if a better option offered itself up I would be gone. I listen to about any leader today from the republican party and I usually want to vomit. (again...I haven't once said I think the democrats are better!) But you have the same Rush Limbaugh attitude that if I don't agree with your stance 100% then I am unamerican. Give me a break!

And I didn't call you divisive. I said the those who orchestrated the tea parties were being divisive and I said Beck and Rush were divisive.

Further, you think 250,000 people nationwide is significant?? We have 300+ million people in this country! More people probably renewed their drivers license that day! If it were 250,000 at one place...then that is significant. A few thousand in a city of a few million is nearly meaningless. Fox simply made it seem significant with the whole "event" that they orchestrated. All the Tea Parties did was pad the coffers of Fox as they provide "us" with there all important "extended coverage."

I also agree that the fed's should tighten spending. Where did I say that I didn't?? Did you read my posts?? My problem is NOT with the idea that federal spending should be limited....my problem was the hypocritical nature of the Tea Parties.

Its just kind of convenient that after 8 years of Bush its all of sudden NOW the time to curtail government spending. Do you have any clue how disingenuous that appears?? The differentiating factor between Bush's spending and Obama's spending is NOT scale...its that one was proposed by a republican and one was proposed by a democrat. To most of the Rush followers its as simple as that! (again...I'm not accusing you of that...but if you would actually listen to rush, like i force myself to do, you'd realize how disgusting the commentary is). You also claim that about 20,000 turned out to the Atlanta Tea Party. Hmmm....why do you think that might be?? Deep south...black president...you put it together.

I've all along been against the mortgage bailout, the auto bailout, a large chunk of the spending bill, and a portion of the Wall Street bailout. I never said I wasn't. My issue, once again, is with the pathetic politics of the right wing zealots.

My problem is I am a conservative and a republican (for now) and my party has been completely and totally hijacked. I cannot think of one person in the party that has a hope of emerging as a transforming figure. And Fox, Rush, Glenn, and all the other loons have done nothing but embarrass the republican party. I used to be proud to be a republican and I can't say that anymore. Its not about the policy...its about the childish, hypocritical, and disingenuous zealotry.

As a final thought, you might want to consider the fact that the Democrats won the election...pretty resoundingly. That doesn't mean I expect dissenters to hold their thoughts or that public outcry should be quelled, but it does mean that republicans need to accept the fact that some things aren't going to go their way. But, again, the zealots can't get a grip on this idea. Immediately, it turned into the "sky is falling." He's been in power for a few months and really had spent all that time dealing with the mess that Bush had a large roll in creating. I just think a lot of the more zealous republicans need to take a long look in the mirror before calling the Obama administration the end of western civilization.

[Omahabound]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Oh for god's sake. Yes i read through your novel, but I don't have the time to go through every last point. My style is to actually write a comprehensible post, focusing on the primary arguments of the poster, in a manner that most who have taken junior high grammar can follow! Sorry, next time maybe I'll write it in a line by line disjointed mess.

My original point is the people at the TEA PARTIES are being mislead. Yes, I noted that you didn't listen to rush...but in the same breath you also told me that I should listen to him and not just condemn him...interesting considering you don't listen to him.

Bottom line is the Tea Partiers weren't here during the Bush administration. And if not for Fox News these things wouldn't have existed. The news organizations who call themselves such are supposed to report the news...NOT generate it and orchestrate it.

Moreover, you keep going back to claiming I'm not a conservative and you base that, in part, on me not supporting republicans!! That attitude is EXACTLY what is wrong with ALL politics. How is complaining about republicans divisive?? I have no problem with political discourse...just not in the tasteless manner in which the republican party does it now. I'm absolutely a conservative...I just am not beholden to a small, but controlling, portion of the republican party. There is a difference between being a financial conservative and a republican. I am a republican now, but if a better option offered itself up I would be gone. I listen to about any leader today from the republican party and I usually want to vomit. (again...I haven't once said I think the democrats are better!) But you have the same Rush Limbaugh attitude that if I don't agree with your stance 100% then I am unamerican. Give me a break!

And I didn't call you divisive. I said the those who orchestrated the tea parties were being divisive and I said Beck and Rush were divisive.

Further, you think 250,000 people nationwide is significant?? We have 300+ million people in this country! More people probably renewed their drivers license that day! If it were 250,000 at one place...then that is significant. A few thousand in a city of a few million is nearly meaningless. Fox simply made it seem significant with the whole "event" that they orchestrated. All the Tea Parties did was pad the coffers of Fox as they provide "us" with there all important "extended coverage."

I also agree that the fed's should tighten spending. Where did I say that I didn't?? Did you read my posts?? My problem is NOT with the idea that federal spending should be limited....my problem was the hypocritical nature of the Tea Parties.

Its just kind of convenient that after 8 years of Bush its all of sudden NOW the time to curtail government spending. Do you have any clue how disingenuous that appears?? The differentiating factor between Bush's spending and Obama's spending is NOT scale...its that one was proposed by a republican and one was proposed by a democrat. To most of the Rush followers its as simple as that! (again...I'm not accusing you of that...but if you would actually listen to rush, like i force myself to do, you'd realize how disgusting the commentary is). You also claim that about 20,000 turned out to the Atlanta Tea Party. Hmmm....why do you think that might be?? Deep south...black president...you put it together.

I've all along been against the mortgage bailout, the auto bailout, a large chunk of the spending bill, and a portion of the Wall Street bailout. I never said I wasn't. My issue, once again, is with the pathetic politics of the right wing zealots.

My problem is I am a conservative and a republican (for now) and my party has been completely and totally hijacked. I cannot think of one person in the party that has a hope of emerging as a transforming figure. And Fox, Rush, Glenn, and all the other loons have done nothing but embarrass the republican party. I used to be proud to be a republican and I can't say that anymore. Its not about the policy...its about the childish, hypocritical, and disingenuous zealotry.

As a final thought, you might want to consider the fact that the Democrats won the election...pretty resoundingly. That doesn't mean I expect dissenters to hold their thoughts or that public outcry should be quelled, but it does mean that republicans need to accept the fact that some things aren't going to go their way. But, again, the zealots can't get a grip on this idea. Immediately, it turned into the "sky is falling." He's been in power for a few months and really had spent all that time dealing with the mess that Bush had a large roll in creating. I just think a lot of the more zealous republicans need to take a long look in the mirror before calling the Obama administration the end of western civilization.

Let me know when you can respond to the rest of my post. Lots of substantive parts which answer much of what you addressed here but somehow you still missed and those other parts that show you to be biased, intellectually disonest, and hypocritical.

There's no point in responding to someone like you at this point. I'd love to continue the debates but if you can't answer questions asked to you, refute points that you pretend are incorrect but provide no counter for, and refuse to address points in whole rather than in small parts that remove them from their context, then I have better things to do.

The rest can judge the issue for themselves.

[mattpoulsen]

Ha ha! Oh good god! If I didn't respond to some little scintilla of drivel that you posted its because I didn't think it was worthwhile. I responded and provided counter points to the parts that I found relevant and meaningful...meaning the rest was NOT substantive, as you seem to believe. That's kind of how a debate/conversation works. I'm not going to go through line by line of your supposed analysis. Further, you didn't ask me any questions!! You make a lot of accusations and you try to conclude what my political beliefs are, but no where in your response was there an actual question posed to me. I provided counters to your claims and provided rebuttals to your more meaningful responses. The fact that you missed those points is your problem. It seems all you can really do is conclude that I was not a "true conservative" and tended to engage in ad hominem attacks. You even put words in my mouth when you accused me of calling you divisive...which i did not...I called some in the republican party divisive.

"No use responding to someone like me?" By that do you mean someone who uses paragraphs instead of bullet points?? Have you ever been on a forum before??
At any rate, this ridiculously unsophisticated exercise is a total waste of my time. Trustme...I've had much more engaging conversations with much deeper people.

If each person, as a requirement, had to respond to every single little point that each other poster made the length of the posts would reach 100's of pages in just a few cycles. Get a grip.

[Omahabound]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Ha ha! Oh good god! If I didn't respond to some little scintilla of drivel that you posted its because I didn't think it was worthwhile. I responded and provided counter points to the parts that I found relevant and meaningful...meaning the rest was NOT substantive, as you seem to believe. That's kind of how a debate/conversation works. I'm not going to go through line by line of your supposed analysis. Further, you didn't ask me any questions!! You make a lot of accusations and you try to conclude what my political beliefs are, but no where in your response was there an actual question posed to me. I provided counters to your claims and provided rebuttals to your more meaningful responses. The fact that you missed those points is your problem. It seems all you can really do is conclude that I was not a "true conservative" and tended to engage in ad hominem attacks. You even put words in my mouth when you accused me of calling you divisive...which i did not...I called some in the republican party divisive.

"No use responding to someone like me?" By that do you mean someone who uses paragraphs instead of bullet points?? Have you ever been on a forum before??
At any rate, this ridiculously unsophisticated exercise is a total waste of my time. Trustme...I've had much more engaging conversations with much deeper people.

If each person, as a requirement, had to respond to every single little point that each other poster made the length of the posts would reach 100's of pages in just a few cycles. Get a grip.

Just can't stop lying can you? Must be a pathology for you.

Here's a lot of questions (several more left out), mostly unanswered. They are removed from their context for the sake of brevity so some would seem useless on their own but you can say what you want. You pretend to be intellectual but are anything but. You've made it obvious that you can answer only the questions that will advance your agenda, acquit you of an accusation, or that can be twisted to say something else.

Keep acting like you're all intellectual but even a child can answer simple questions; something you obviously are too inept to do.


What about Acorn paying for buses and busing people to the AIG executives' homes or the socialist organizations behind 90% of the liberal protests?

Did you notice how most media downplayed the numbers at these protests yet around 20,000 showed up in Atlanta alone?

Did you miss that Michael Steele (leader of the RNC) was not allowed to speak at a tea party? Did you hear Glenn Beck condemning the Democrats and having the ralliers at the Alamo cheer only to cheer equally as loud when he condemned the Republicans?

You came in hear whining about Republicans while calling yourself conservative and you want to [call] me divisive? Are you typically hypocritical or only when it seems you pretend to be conservative?

You ask why would I get my information from a single source then you offer two sources? Did you even see that your question was inconsistent with itself?


I asked, "Did you notice how most media downplayed the numbers at these protests yet around 20,000 showed up in Atlanta alone?" Do you not understand that that is indicative of me at least sampling multiple sources of the media ("most media")? Do you not also see that I was posting in this forum soliciting information?


Really? In what sense? If someone has a financial stake in something, does that necessarily mean they are dishonest or are you projecting? When something is in your financial interest are you willing to forsake all integrity just to make a buck? Lastly, what makes you think I accept all information from those sources I prefer without any skepticism or that I dismiss all information from those sources that I do not prefer?

How will it be paid for other than with increased taxation?

Do you think lending a friend $100 is different than $300? $1,000 versus $3,000?


How about you tell us what the answer is and what is so great about spending money we don't have on things we don't even know?

How many years ago did the airlines go bankrupt yet they still operate and we haven't seen a decrease in safety?

Are you gay? Since when has the government threatened to come into your bedroom? Was it during a parade of skimpily clad people doing naughty things with each other on public streets?

So how much do you make? If Obama places you in a tax category where your taxes don't change but a "rich" man's goes up to 80% to pay for all this spending are you OK with that? If so, how is that consistent with not stripping people of their liberties (property in this case) and how is that consistent with fiscal conservatism?

Really? That was the only thing or was that the only thing your wide variety of sources told you.[?]

How much did Reagan spend? How much did he appeal to "religious extremists"?

[mattpoulsen]

Okay! This is absurd. I don't know how many times i stated that my issue isn't whether the spending is good or bad. In fact, I stated I'm against!! So why do you keep asking me these ridiculously childish question about spending??

MY ISSUE IS WITH THE TEA PARTIES AND THE FACT THAT THOSE WHO ATTENDED WERE USED BY THE CRAZY RIGHT WING ZEALOTS (FOX, RUSH, BECK, AND ETC.) FOR PROFIT!

Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but then it was being reported by these same people that it was this amazing grass roots efforts. Ha! Then people like you get on and say things like: "oh its only been 100 days" - suggesting that there is so much social upheaval over it. Well, there isn't huge social upheaval over it. A few thousand in a few cities...does not equate an uprising.

Nevertheless, I went through and answered your questions. Here ya go!

First, your questions aren't really questions...they're rhetorical questions. So as far as a child goes...he/she would recognize there is nothing to answer...they're simple rhetorical jabs with not intellectual consequence.

Acorn: So what? I don't care about Acorn's tactics. I railed against them during the election. That is NOT the issue here. You have a real problem even recognizing what my premise is!

Media: Don't care what the media did! My whole thesis pertained to what the Tea Partiers were doing. I've never professed a love for the media. But that's not this conversation. Why is your questioin relevant? I could ask you what color of car you have...does it mean anything here???

Michael Steele: Again, how is this relevant??

Am I typically hypocritical or only when I pretend to be conservative: Well, this pretty much sums up your line of questioning. Nothing but rhetorical questions trying to jab at my character. This is exactly how the zealots I'm condemning act. But for the record, I answered that question several times. I stated that I am a conservative, as I'm a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.

How will it be paid without increased taxation: Well, again, I answered this. Increased GDP and as a result increased corporate profits...leading to more jobs...and an increase in per capita individual tax revenue and business tax revenue. Not to even mention the budgetary decreases that could occur because of improved efficiencies in various areas, efficiencies that may be realized via some governmental investment. Not to mention the equity positions taken in the bailouts. None of these require raising taxes on an individual. But again, why is this relevant?? I have already said I SUPPORT LOWER SPENDING!!!!!!!! But to couch it in terms of a checking account model as you do so so over simplifies the problem that it doesn't really even warrant a response. My point it is far more complicated than you try to paint it.

Is lending a friend $100 different than $300? $1,000 versus $3,000?: AGAIN! Why is this relevant??! This is exactly one of my points! You try to reduce the world's largest economy to a PIGGY BANK!! If lending a friend $3000 will allow him to fix his situation allowing him to make $5000 then its justified. Again, its incredibly simplistic and has zero intellectual consequence. Is a square different than a triangle...huh? Come on...provide the answer...it is the key to a trillion dollar stalling economy for a country with a population of 300 million+ people immersed in an era of failing infrastructure and robust global economic expansion and competion. duh!

Financial Stake of Fox, etc.: The point is it was being heralded as a grass roots effort!! That can't be the case if its an orchestrated event by a billion dollar news network!! Further, Fox is suppose to report the news...not make it! Oh wait...I already answered this one.

Am I gay? Wow! How unbelievably little of you! No. I'm not gay! But why would that matter! I don't just get upset when my rights are intruded on! I get upset when the government tries to intrude in other people's bedroom too! Again...how very "Rush" of you.

How much do i make: Its none of your business, but my wife and I will have our taxes go up under Obama's plan. But that's what happens when you have two doctorates and law degree between the two of you. Where exactly you get the 80% number is beyond me?! Again....a bit of zealous speculating (er...rather fear mongering).

And, again, I stated about 87 times now that I think spending should be restrained!!!!!!!!!!! For god's sake, how many times do I have to say that is NOT THE ISSUE HERE!! My whole freaking point is I HATE THE ZEALOUS RIGHT WING AND I BELIEVE THE TEA PARTIERS WERE USED BY THOSE RIGHT WINGERS, INCLUDING FOX NEWS, GLEN BECK, AND RUSH LIMBAUGH!!

Reagan: Loved him! But he would never behave in the way the republican leaders of today do. And he would never condone the behavior of Rush, Beck or Fox News. He was actually a statesman....kind of a forgotten species. Today its nothing but twist, misconstrue, misquote and take out of context, and fear peddle. Oh wait...you're familiar with that!