Morning Must Reads: November 20

In the News: Obama says Republicans share blame for Obamacare issues, Afghan Officials want U.S. to Admit Military Error, State Senator's Son was turned away from Psychiatric facility in Va.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The early morning sun rises behind the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

Afghans Demand U.S. Admit Military Errors [NYT]

Obama Says Republicans Share Some of the Blame for Health-Care Law’s Failures [Washington Post]

National Journal Poll: Americans Believe Obamacare Will Help the Poor, Not the Country

Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will Run on More than Obamacare in 2014 at a BuzzFeed Brews event in Washington on Tuesday [BuzzFeed]

Rand Paul on Chris Christie: “I don’t think any one person gets to decide what is or what isn’t conservative,” Paul said on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.” “On the case of the New Jersey governor, I think embracing Obamacare, expanding Medicaid in his state is very expensive and not fiscally conservative.” [Politico]

NY Magazine: “Rep. Trey Radel, the 37-year-old freshman congressman from Florida who once said,“Tupac is what I’ma be listening to in my car,” was charged last month for cocaine possession.Politico reports that Radel was hit with a misdemeanor in Washington, D.C., on October 29… It’s like Rob Ford meets Florida Man meets Rep. Peter Russo from House of Cards.”

State Senator’s Son Had Psychiatric Evaluation Before Stabbing, But No Beds Were Available [Washington Post]

President George W. Bush tells Jay Leno: “Eight years is plenty…I don’t miss the spotlight.” [CNN]

Michelle Obama cites ‘Shortgate’ as biggest fashion regret on BET [Huffington Post]

 

771 comments
collioure
collioure

@forgottenlord@collioure 

I don't accept 35% contraception, 3% abortion. We know from the number of abortions performed that such cannot represent revenues. Once again that is a smokescreen. Necessary to protect tthe clinics, but a smokescreen nonetheless.

FYI the spectrum on abortion is anti-choice - pro-life - pro-choice - pro-abortion, 1% on each end and the other 98% in the middle.

I understand that some people do not want to use the broader definition of racism. By that definition Tero was making a racial slur against certain whites. No question about it. When you put a skin color into a pejorative statement, you cross the line. He crossed the line.

Sorry, the discussion was not about voter suppression strategies. I wasn't aware of the article that finally was referenced. I was just trying to work my way through the subject sympathetically but objectively.

Democrats in control of Voting Organizations is absolutely key because those orgs would not allow African-Americans to be discriminated against at the polls. So most of them are not.

I may need to explain more thoroughly, but you certainly need to read much more carefully. You miss vital points, and you allow your own personal filter to color how you read.

 

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure 

"rich entitled white kid" vs "rich entitled kid" and those have been shortened.  When you add the word "white" into a pejorative phrase, it becomes a racist slur against white people

That doesn't make any sense.  Racism is a specific type of discrimination - to prejudge what kind of person someone is based upon a specific trait often in a negative way.  Discriminatory behavior being bad isn't restricted to racism.  There were three elements of grouping - rich, white and kids - in Tero's post of which, only one was racially based.  They have equal weight when considering whether it is or isn't discriminatory.  However, the use of the term entitled applies a filter to specifically cite a behavior type.  In other words, it's not prejudiced because it is looking for an actual behavior rather than just looking at the group involved.  And therein is why it isn't actually racially relevant.

Regarding PP i did the calculations to demonstrate how much of their revenue is abortions.  It's their biggest revenue item = primary business.  The 3% figure is a smokescreen that equates handling out a pamphlet to an abortion.

I am not aware of any limit on the use of federal funds.

1) The federal funds are the biggest revenue item for the business providing about a third of all funding.  If we want to talk about direct income, donations actually account for far more of their income than so-called "Clinic Revenue".

2) Second, federal law says that no federal funding can be put towards abortion.  This is simple known fact

3) Contraception makes up 35% of their services.  Now, obviously it depends on what we're talking about for contraception but birth control pills over the course of a year for a single woman could easily be worth more in revenue than an abortion

Don't believe me, check this link

Evidence?  Get real!  You need a new pair of ears.  Every bad result in this administration is blamed on someone else.  Every one. 

Ignoring the economy because you and I had this debate and I don't want to rehash it right now (because I lost a 15 paragraph post thanks to LF where I laid out the details on the Stimulus to show that it actually did make economic sense and ended up just forwarding you to the Wikipedia article I was sourcing from which I know you didn't read and I really don't want to do the research to recreate it right now), give me some examples.

I'm afraid your problem is not that I don't explain enough, but that you intercede your own opinions instead of being a good listener.

For example, you'd like Obamacare to succeed.  So you aren't paying attention to all the indications of why it will fail, and I have pointed out more than those above.

I read probably a tenth of all posts made here on an average day - I don't have the luxury to review 1000 posts and all the links referenced.  So I'm sure I have missed a lot of points.  But I laid out what seem to be the three major sticking points and last I checked, the interactions between them were the crux of this current "ObamaCare will fail" meme.  If my assumptions are incorrect, correct them.  Explain to me why my assumptions are wrong.  You have an incredible amount of time to post here, able to do dozens of protracted debates every day so what I'm asking is that you actually explain your position to me here (or wherever we continue this discussion in the next MMR if that's the case).  You are going to have to repeat yourself - I do all the time - if you want to communicate.  And, really, you have to do a better job of communicating because right now, I'm one of the few who thinks you aren't totally full of s*** and is actually trying to understand your point of view and I don't understand it.  If the objective of communication is to actually communicate, what are you doing if nobody understands you?

Or you haven't understood "pro-abortion" despite the number of times I have explained it.  FYI I am pro-choice and I favor the existence of PP, but I also think the truth should be known.

I didn't say I didn't know your definition of pro-abortion, I said that I found it offensive because it has a very different meaning to me.  I only discovered what you meant by the term pro-abortion because I specifically spent 5 posts the other day trying to discover it.  Then I saw you post it Tuesday and I still found it offensive - even though I know what you meant by it, the fact that it meant something completely different than me meant that my gut instinct was to be incredibly offended when I saw the term.  Really, we're split on the denotative and connotative meanings of pro-abortion

And therein brings me to the point I have been trying to make

I'm afraid your problem is not that I don't explain enough, but that you intercede your own opinions instead of being a good listener.

Pot, kettle, but that's a side note.  We all do that. We all have our own worldviews and it slants the way we view the world and the way we think.  The reason you're mistreated, the reason your evidence and your claims seem boistrous and out of line with the rest of us is because they are fundamentally supported by your worldview and not ours.  A Serial Murderer was put to death yesterday and Sacred says "The world is a better place today" and I say "is it?"  Our worldviews filter the way we approach arguments and evidence and how we analyze it and the criticisms we make.  Your worldview being different necessitates that you explain things more thoroughly.  Eight or nine articles were posted to you earlier today discussing the racial prejudice that inherently exists towards minorities in elections but you remain suspicious, uncertain that this is sufficiently proven as having overcome the general impacts of urban/rural divide.  Well, it's going to be the same way with us - you're going to have to post 8 or 9 articles and explain your positions as many ways to convince us of your viewpoint.  You're going to have to have protracted debates where you present evidence alongside conjecture.  That's just the reality of it.  And even then, you're going to have to have it again because some of us missed those debates and didn't have time to peruse them.

But in those debates, you are going to have to actually debate, to present your viewpoint.  You were suspicious about a lot of factors but it wasn't until I specifically asked you that you came forward with counter arguments - and you stirred up an incredibly interesting debate about trying to figure out the relevant information and how to dig deeper into the issue.  A dozen posts were wasted getting to that point because you gave a two word answer and didn't communicate anything more complex until specifically asked.  This is what I'm talking about when I say you don't communicate.  You can't just assume we instantly understand what you're thinking and its your tendency to do this and your regular unwillingness to supply anything further unless specifically asked that gets you often thought of as a troll.

MementoMori
MementoMori

 Death panels.

In nearly all of the 32 states that permit capital punishment, a jury makes the final decision on whether a defendant will live or die. Not so in Alabama, where elected judges may override a jury verdict of life in prison and unilaterally impose a death sentence.

Since 1982, Alabama judges have overridden 95 such verdicts, sentencing defendants to death even though the jury voted for life — many times by a vote of 12 to 0.

MementoMori
MementoMori

 Why Gus Deeds Wasn't Hospitalized

Between 2009 and 2012, states cut $4.35 billion from mental health services, which eliminated nearly 10 percent of all beds in just those three years. This is while 10 percent more people have been seeking services

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Yep Climate change is still a myth and we have nothing to worry about

Half a year’s worth of rain fell in an hour and a half Monday night in the Italian island of Sardinia, flooding streets and killing at least 16 people.

Sardinia was pummeled by 17.3 inches of rain Monday by Cyclone Cleopatra, a drenching that Franco Gabrielli, head of Italy’s Civil Protection Agency, called “an exceptional event.” According to Italy’s Civil Protection Agency, so far 2,500 people have been displaced by the storm and more than 10,000 have lost electricity. The Italian government has declared a state of emergency on the island and has allocated about $27 million in rescue and relief aid.

fitty_three
fitty_three

Welcome to @collioure 's World:

[student, leaning on large boulder]

Two plus two is four.

[boulder]

No it isn't.

[student]

Ok. Two fingers. One, two. Two more fingers. Three, Four. See?

[boulder]

You're wrong. 

[student]

I give up!

[boulder rolls a victory lap, smashing cars, a cat, and several caterpillars]

Yaaah! I win!

collioure
collioure

@forgottenlord @collioure  

Racism is racial discrimination.  Pick up a dictionary, please;

35%.  Thank you.  Accepted.  That makes it their primary business revenue item which they need to hide.

You did not read to the end of the discussion on voter waits at the polls.  Someone finally referenced an article. that made an effort to explain the phenomenon (none of the others did) and the weak conclusion was not racism.  So I was right to question the reasons why African-Americans wait longer.  And I gave evidence as to why it probably wasn't racism (Democrats in control of the voting organization in their neighborhoods)

Much later

MrObvious
MrObvious

@DonQuixotic 

Still wrong, but at least it was done to a deserving man. However him dying in prison seems a more fitting sentence then letting him off the hook.

fitty_three
fitty_three

@MementoMori  

And a bump or two for the GOP base.

More seriously though, local level politicians in every state have made mental health a favorite target for cuts when belt tightening is needed.

collioure
collioure

@mantisdragon91 

Just the last 5 years?

I think the horse left the barn long before that. 

Instead of just posting references that please you, you would do well to think them through and question them first.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

Racism is racial discrimination.  Pick up a dictionary, please;

I didn't disagree.  I explicitly said that ("Racism is a specific type of discrimination" - read my post.)  What I also said was that it wasn't discriminatory.  Why?  Because discriminatory is about prejudging someone based upon the group they "belong to".  But Tero's statement was specifically filtering for a specific *behavior* from the subset of that group.  This isn't a prejudging of people - he's looking for that specific group.  Basically, there's a world of difference between "entitled rich white kids are snobs" and "rich white kids are snobs" for the former looks for a specific behavior while the latter cares only about the specific group they belong to.  Furthermore, my point of discussing the broader concept of discrimination was to point out the ridiculousness of focusing on just racism when there was specific references to class and generation.

(Like I said, you claiming I don't listen is pot calling the kettle black)

35%.  Thank you.  Accepted.  That makes it their primary business revenue item which they need to hide.

Uh....35% is contraception, not abortion.  Abortion is only arguably a type of contraception but in this case, it is explicitly being distinguished by Planned Parenthood to point to the comparative service differences (3% for abortion, 35% for contraception).

You did not read to the end of the discussion on voter waits at the polls.  Someone finally referenced an article. that made an effort to explain the phenomenon (none of the others did) and the weak conclusion was not racism.  So I was right to question the reasons why African-Americans wait longer.  And I gave evidence as to why it probably wasn't racism (Democrats in control of the voting organization in their neighborhoods)

I actually did read it and was using it as a reference point.  My point wasn't "you're wrong", my point was "you don't explain yourself, you don't communicate".  We would have never gotten to that point if I hadn't completely reframed the debate and specifically asked you for what sort of information you're looking for.  If you read the posts up until then, it was you saying "not necessarily" with absolutely no explanation and everyone else citing article after article of various voter suppression strategies.  Even after I asked you, they were still citing article after article of voter suppression strategies and how those were affecting voter times (while a side discussion went on about actual metrics gathering and how you could relate them).  At one point, you had a single citation about Democrats in control of Voting Organizations which still doesn't make sense to me and you never explained more clearly even though it was laughed at by multiple individuals nor did you back up with any evidence even when evidence was presented to call your argument into question.  Finally, someone posted an article discussing possible other causes full of things that you could've posted a lot earlier.  So again: YOU DON'T COMMUNICATE.

And you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying but instead skimming it to try and get a general gist and assuming that your gist is correct based upon preconceived notions and slanted by your personal world view rather than actually, y'know, reading.

NP042
NP042

@collioure @forgottenlord

Racism is racial discrimination.  Pick up a dictionary, please; - Ok

Racism 1 a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement,usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.


3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Where is the policy or system of government fostering discrimination in the original post?  There isn't.  It was satire.  Get your panties out of a twist.

(none of the others did) - This is false.  Mori, 53 and myself all provided links.  You ignored all of the preceding ones.

And I gave evidence as to why it probably wasn't racism - You gave your own speculation.  You didn't include any supporting evidence.  Your one factual claim (about Illinois voting control) was straight-up untrue.

(Democrats in control of the voting organization in their neighborhoods) - This is also false.  Mori went into great detail as to why.

NP042
NP042

@collioure @mantisdragon91 Instead of just posting thoughts that please you, you would do well to think them through and find supporting evidence for them first.

TyPollard
TyPollard

@collioure @fitty_three

Again: 

I come here to the swamp because I like spending time with most of the posters and I learn from them.

Why do you come here?

My guess is that you are a vile troll. But it's just a guess.


collioure
collioure

@NP042 @collioure @forgottenlord 

You, I beleive, gave us an article that actually addressed the issue raised and concluded that it probably was not because of race.  Did you not read it?  It was the only referenced yesterday on the subject.

As for Mori the Moron his reference to Illinois was bogus.  Counties control the election apparati in Illinois. 

You need to speak more softly and do your homework better.

collioure
collioure

@NP042 @collioure @forgottenlord

I went to OneLook chich references a bunch of dictionaries

From the very first one American Heritage

rac·ism (rszm)

NOUN:

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

QED

MrObvious
MrObvious

@DonQuixotic @MrObvious 

But we're not and never will be civilized. That's an illusion. At best we have regulated anarchy.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

He posted the headline which was a (slanted) summary of what the article was about which was primarily, again, a statement that the 60 million balloon in costs was from Wall Street, not pensioners.  I actually did read the article, thank you.  Yes, they overstated when they even suggested the 60 million is what blew up Detroit, but the point in the article is still sound.  That's not Mantis's fault.  And if your argument is "the real problem is that the city shrunk to 1/3 its original size", then make that argument, don't go "the problem goes back further than 5 years" - because the city shrinkage isn't even remotely implied by that statement while what is implied is fiscal mismanagement which sounds suspiciously like talking about the pensioners which is why we all jumped you in the first place.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure 

Again, Salon wasn't actually claiming it was the last 5 years - really, that would be a stupid argument: Detroit has a 150 million budget deficit but the balloon expense mentioned was only 60 million.  Salon was saying that the opinion presented by some on the right wing that the 60 million expense wasn't actually from greedy employees.

collioure
collioure

@forgottenlord @collioure  

I didn't buy into the greedy employees claim, and I'm not buying Salon's last 5 years as the #1 reason either.

Once again I think the horse left the barn long before that. The auto industry there had been in decline for a long time.  The city had been dying before 2009.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

The reason they used those 5 years was because, as Mantis pointed out, it was the period where the budget exploded on them and their point was that it had little to do with the retirees or other entitlements and more to do with the fact that a deal with Wall Street that was supposed to save them money had ballooned their budget and now costs them 200 million to get out of.

If the argument had been "Detroit collapsed to 1/3 its original size and so it has to hurt former employees to deal with this massive problem", we'd be having a different discussion.  But that wasn't the claimed issue.  The claimed issue was that it was greedy employees getting lavish retirement packages - the packages weren't the problem - at best, they're the third problem and I doubt they're even that.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@collioure @forgottenlord  

It is a similar story in Detroit, even though you probably haven’t heard about it. What you’ve probably heard is that the city’s “legacy expenses” jumped by $62.8 million between 2008 and 2013 — and you’ve probably heard pundits recklessly assume that “legacy expenses” are the same as retirement benefits. But such an assumption hides what’s really going on.

As Turbeville shows, in the five years leading up to today’s crisis, the city’s pension contribution expenses were essentially flat. Yes, its healthcare contribution expenses increased, but they rose by less than the nationwide annual increase in healthcare expenses, meaning Detroit experienced nothing out of the ordinary on that score. So if benefits didn’t drive the legacy cost increases, what did? As Turbeville documents, it was fees, financing costs and payments incurred by Wall Street’s swap scheme. Those expenses constitute more than 61 percent of the total legacy-cost jump.

In his report, Turbeville notes that “the banks are now demanding upwards of $250-350 million in swap termination payments” in order to let Detroit out of the apocalyptic swap scheme. In an actual bankruptcy, creditors might have to forgo some of those fees — or in the industry lingo, they might have to “take a haircut.” But in the era of bailouts, ordinary Americans have to take haircuts, but Wall Streeters almost never do. Thus, the banks’ demand for termination payments has been turned into yet another opportunity for the financial industry to swindle Detroit taxpayers. Specifically, Detroit’s Republican-appointed emergency manager is pushing the city council to take on an additional $350 million in debt from a new loan with Barclays.

Bloomberg News notes that Barclays’ infusion of capital won’t go to supporting city services nor to preventing cuts to the city’s average $19,000-a-year pensions. Instead, officials are pushing draconian pension cuts, while the lion’s share of the Barclays loan — $230 million — would go to pay Bank of America’s termination fees in the old swap deal. As if deliberately underscoring how all of these machinations serve to enrich Wall Street rather than to support the city, Detroit officials have tried to keep the fees associated with the new loan secret. As the Detroit Free Press reports, Barclays attorney admitted that “revealing the fees could invite competitors to offer financing to Detroit at a better rate.”

In other words, the bank aimed to keep the terms secret in order to keep bank profit margins as high as possible.

To be sure, Detroit’s pension system is not entirely blameless. It has certainly had its share of problems. But as Turbeville concludes: “While [Detroit] emergency manager Kevyn Orr has focused on cutting retiree benefits and reducing the city’s long-term liabilities to address the crisis, an analysis of the city’s finances reveals that his efforts are inappropriate and, in important ways, not rooted in fact. Detroit’s bankruptcy was primarily caused by a severe decline in revenue and exacerbated by complicated Wall Street deals that put its ability to pay its expenses at greater risk.”

Though the complex details of the interest-rate-swap transactions can obscure what’s really happening, there should be no confusion: The “inappropriate” policies now being foisted on Detroit represent disaster capitalism in its purest form. The disaster is for pensioners, who had little to do with the city’s financial crisis, but who nonetheless get all the blame from conservative activists, Wall Street-sponsored politicians and talking point-driven media. The capitalism, meanwhile, is for the big banks who helped engineer the city’s financial crisis, and who now get to hide behind the esoterica of municipal finance as they continue profiting from the emergenc

collioure
collioure

@forgottenlord @collioure  

Yes, it was the final 5 years before bankruptcy, but Detroit wasn't just hollowed out in the last 5 years.  In fact it was just 5 years ago that GM was speeding toward bankruptcy itself.

collioure
collioure

I'm not going to answer any more of these.

I'm afraid your problem is not that I don't explain enough, but that you intercede your own opinions instead of being a good listener.

For example, you'd like Obamacare to succeed.  So you aren't paying attention to all the indications of why it will fail, and I have pointed out more than those above.

Or you haven't understood "pro-abortion" despite the number of times I have explained it.  FYI I am pro-choice and I favor the existence of PP, but I also think the truth should be known.

In the future I suggest you listen carefully to what I post without reference to your own strongly held view points.


collioure
collioure

with liberals it's always someone else's fault.

Evidence?  Get real!  You need a new pair of ears.  Every bad result in this administration is blamed on someone else.  Every one.

collioure
collioure

@forgottenlord @collioure  

I'm turning in soon.

I can't answer all these tonight

"rich entitled white kid" vs "rich entitled kid" and those have been shortened.  When you add the word "white" into a pejorative phrase, it becomes a racist slur against white people.

Regarding PP i did the calculations to demonstrate how much of their revenue is abortions.  It's their biggest revenue item = primary business.  The 3% figure is a smokescreen that equates handling out a pamphlet to an abortion.

I am not aware of any limit on the use of federal funds.


forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

FYI: I might not get back to any reply you have until the morning.  I'll probably only be able to peak in for 5 or so minutes at a time, not enough for a lengthy debate.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

Yes and no.  There's three main elements you're looking at there - specifically:

1) The non-qualifying insurance plans (which I think Obama backed up on) needing to be dropped because they simply didn't qualify as adequate insurance.  I don't have time to go over why those policies should be banned but we can talk about it later

2) The exchanges being implemented incorrectly thanks to bad websites and blah blah blah.  I do not defend it, but I would like to make a distinction between the exchanges which I believe will work and the registration system which is having problems.  The underlying plans are good plans for good rates and will drive prices down.  We just need the website to work.

3) The refusal of many states (primarily red) to accept the Medicaid expansion.  This creates a massive gap that the ACA as drafted couldn't account for.  Problem is, the only way to fix this gap is by doing something in Congress.  Congress won't do anything about it because, well, the House is busy with calling for a full repeal or defunding of the program.

------------------

See, this was the point I was trying to make: you're using a completely different definition of "pro-abortion" than I am.  When I see the term "pro-abortion", I see a term that says "they want as many babies as possible to be born" - something akin to Paulie's line that a live birth is a Liberal failure.  That's offensive to me - it seemingly attributes motives to us that isn't representative of our beliefs.  We say don't call a black person a n***er because it's offensive to them, but you use the term pro-abortion after I've told you what it means to me and why it doesn't feel appropriate.

(Side note: my personal opinion is that a woman can end the pregnancy at any time but science can do anything in its power to save the fetus/baby.  Does that make me "pro-abortion" or just pro-choice?)

----------------------

Rightwing - leftwing

I am afraid your own left wing viewpoint puts you at a disadvantage to see this clearly.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but like I said, when you're coming from a different view point than us, the burden of proof is upon you to explain your position for us to be able to understand it.

-----------------------------------

Hey, porn and racism aren't always things you can explain.  Sometimes you just feel/assimilate racism in dialog. 

I don't agree.  Sometimes we misinterpret a point, sometimes we do recognize something that's offensive.  Regardless, discussing why we think it's racist and offensive is something worth talking about - I really don't understand the difference between "rich entitled white kid" and "rich entitled kid".  When we analyze them, sometimes we end up with a very different understanding.

---------------------------------

And, yes, PP does not counsel evenhandedly when pregnant young women come to them.  Their primary business is abortion.

I know we've had this debate before but 3% of their customers actually get an abortion and no more than 30% of their funds could possibly fund abortions by federal law and the math to wanting more abortions to increase their funds doesn't make sense to me but I forget it now and I don't have the time at the moment to research it.  Regardless, you've provided a declarative statement and you haven't explained it with evidence or any other information

----------------------------

BTW I don't take any talking points as you term them at face value.  if I make such statements, I understand what is behind them.

Yes and no.  You understand what's behind them because they inherently agree with your worldview so you assume that what's behind them is accurate - hence why you tend to take them at face value.  However, when your worldview conflicts with facts, your tendency is to reject the facts.  Some of it is definitely you looking for some loophole, some possibility that says the facts don't actually conflict with your worldview - understandable - but even when you can't find that loophole or when that loophole is highly unlikely, you still reject the facts and that's the frustrating part.

--------------------------------

E;g.  with liberals it's always someone else's fault.

What's behind that is a million examples.  Barry 0 just offered us another one today.

Again, a declarative statement without supporting evidence.  My biggest problem is actually with the word "Liberal" in the statement - with the inherent idea that it is something unique to Liberals and that it is a trait shared by all Liberals (and the general use of it as a way to dismiss points Liberals make without considering whether they're valid).  It's a black and white viewpoint in a world full of gray without any consideration for the little intricacies of the world or the situation at hand.

collioure
collioure

BTW I don't take any talking points as you term them at face value.  if I make such statements, I understand what is behind them.

E;g.  with liberals it's always someone else's fault.

What's behind that is a million examples.  Barry 0 just offered us another one today.

collioure
collioure

And, yes, PP does not counsel evenhandedly when pregnant young women come to them.  Their primary business is abortion.

collioure
collioure

Rightwing - leftwing

I am afraid your own left wing viewpoint puts you at a disadvantage to see this clearly.

collioure
collioure

Most of the people at PP are pro-abortion.  They are solely concerned with the rights of the mother.  Solely. Pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

Listen, just because SCOTUS said it doesn't mean it works.  I want a debate, I want to understand other people's positions, and I want to learn far more about the differing viewpoints and the reasons why they think the way they do.  I have a very strong opinion about a lot of things and I hope over time I will convince you and others of many just as I hope you and others will improve and refine my viewpoints to be more understanding and helpful to society, but we will never get there with arguments like "I know it when I see it".

And I guess I missed your explanation.  I think I saw something about Tero asking if he removed the word White whether it would pass muster and you saying "Yes" but you didn't elaborate on that.  Regardless, I can't see it right now - stupid LF - but I'd love to have a full debate with you regarding the definition of racism.

Some other time, though.

collioure
collioure

Why Obamacare is going to be a disaster.?

Sen Baucus (D) predicted it.

I've noted that the lies are coming to light and that there will be great upheaval in people's medical arrangements.  Jan 1 there will be people without insurance that was canceled.  I have noted that too.

Plus the website about which the news just gets worse and worse.

Once more more Democrats will soon jump ship.

collioure
collioure

@forgottenlord @collioure  

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll do these one by one

Re:  "that's racism, I know it when I see it"

We had similar language regarding pornography in a SCOTUS decision.

I did explain the racism in Tero's post today.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

I don't remember what I was saying in rebuttle to you because I don't remember what you said.  I defended your French credentials and generally felt that entire debate was a ridiculous side show.  I have criticized both of them and they both saw my criticisms and discussed it with me.  I don't remember what else was said.  Yeah, ok, I'm a bit ticked that I lost that part of my post.  It was three paragraphs explaining that yes, I do criticize people and fleshing out my beliefs on the matter.  There is something I do want to highlight

You are incredibly difficult to debate with.  When I debate with other members of Swampland, I can get a sense of where they're coming from, of what their opinions are, and why they believe those things fairly easily.  Even Paulie is generally easy to understand both his motives and his opinions.  You, however, are really difficult.  Part of it is certainly that you don't cleanly fit into existing molds of opinions so I can't make the same assumptions.  Despite other people's opinions, there is a logic to most of your opinions, it's just not logic I'm used to following.  However, with that comes the need to actually support your positions - a need you refuse to meet.  You make declarative statements without actually supporting it - I think one of the first days you were here, I remember you saying "that's racism, I know it when I see it" (I think to Paulie).  While I agreed with you on that issue, it was more or less the same attitude to Tero earlier today and therein was my problem - I didn't think Tero's post was racism and you never really clarified why.  You say things like ObamaCare is going to be a disaster without really backing it up and you often make powerful declarative statements about some stat or another without really supporting it.  When pushed for evidence and links, you tend to dodge rather than actually provide it - normally, I'll actually do a quick Google Search when I'm asked for info that I don't have the link for and there has been more than one occasion where I've had to withdraw a stat because it was fictitious.  Further, even when presented with overwhelming evidence, you stick to your guns without really explaining why.  Moreover, you attribute and presume negative motives towards people - you are not alone, in this regard, but you do it nonetheless.  The most recent memorable example is your attribution of "Pro abortion" to members of Planned Parenthood - an insanely offensive term that is true of almost nobody and insanely loaded with significantly different interpretations of what it actually means (in your case, you seem to classify it as those who believe there should be no restrictions on abortion while I read it as recommending or pressuring people to have abortions - something which is almost never the case and would not be true of the majority of people of any organization of significant size - at least, not without an insane amount of backlash).

Does that justify the mistreatment you get...not really.  I try to avoid insulting you because I believe your opinions are, if not honest, at least closer to honest and certainly honest far more regularly (as opposed to Paulie who fully admits he's looking for the reaction).  But I can understand other people's opinions.  You have a very different worldview and I would love to explore it, but any time I want to dig past the surface, I find slogans in the way instead of thought.  You are far more willing to take right wing talking points at face value while left wing talking points you generally ignore and the burden of proof is far greater.  Similarly, when right wing talking points are demonstratably wrong, you have an insanely high burden of proof and even when presented with evidence and thoughts about it, you tend to not really engage in debate so much as just stick to your original position without really providing arguments for why you believe your original position.  At those times, it is incredibly hard to determine if you have legitimate arguments, if you're in denial about your position, or if you're a troll who's here to get a rise rather than have a real discussion.  It is easy to dismiss you as the latter in those cases and I'm sure you've seen the lengthy debates we've had about this behavior.  And to some extent, you are at a disadvantage here - you are on the opposite end of the spectrum from the community.  This places the burden of proof on you in general and it's not a burden you're generally willing to carry.

MementoMori
MementoMori

@collioure @MementoMori 

Get back to me when you figure out why there so many Europeans in the European Union, of which you self-admittedly know little, despite the fact that you live there. Allegedly.

Until then, anything you say without substantiation (like your "1 in 2000" stat, that you claim came from calculations that you never sourced) will be viewed as false or deceptive.

Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money. Put up, shut up, or continue as you are currently and be mocked for it. I'm guessing you'll take the third path.

collioure
collioure

If your question is why they should at least treat Americans as well as fellow Europeans, the answer is that our military has been protecting them.for about 70 years.

collioure
collioure

@MementoMori @collioure  

You foolishly accused me of making up a stat.  I stated clearly that I calculated it at the time from data available in the news.

When you try to play gotcha with me, and you're wrong, and you're frquently wrong, you're going to hear about it,

MORON !

MementoMori
MementoMori

@collioure @MementoMori

"how Americans are not treated equally wit other Europeans within the [European Union]"

Yes. Why on earth would they treat Europeans in the European Union differently than Americans?

Next, you'll be telling me Europeans don't have the same rights as Americans in the states, even though the French saved us from King George!

Y'know what? I'm not a fan of name calling. I find it childish and the mark of a person who has run of coherent arguments.

But in your case, mon ami, I can safely say you are truly and utterly a moron.

Bonne nuit.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@collioure @MementoMori We didn't save anyone from Hitler. If it wasn't for his decision to invade Russia you would still be eating weiners and kraut. The Russian Army crushed the Wehrmacht and they did it with very little help from the US or the UK.

collioure
collioure

@MementoMori @collioure  

I didn't make up the 1 in 2000 stat, moron.

I do know how the EU functions.  I just noted how Americans are not treated equally wit other Europeans within the EU even though we Americans saved them from Hitler and protected them all these years.

MementoMori
MementoMori

@collioure 

I guess collie meant "moron", "bozo", "ignoramus", "third grade", "nursery school", "idiot", and all the rest as terms of affection.

Also, when you make up stats ("1 in 2000") and seem to lack a basic understanding of how the EU functions, it calls into your question your credibility. Thus, why we're all starting to think of you as The Faux Frenchman.

As far as I'm concerned, you're not a whole different than any other troll - leftwing or rightwing - you're here to get a rise out of people because it gets a rise out of you.

collioure
collioure

And don't forget.

These folks are heavily invested emotionally in Obama who suddenly is in a deadly tailspin.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@collioure

I actually have openly criticized both of them for civility and poor arguments in the past, but neither of them come close to your civility, choice of poor arguments and general trollery.

Diecash1
Diecash1

You're singing my song, DonQ.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

See what I mean?

Seriously, just stop engaging him.  Flag his posts when he's particularly offensive and just move on.