fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
Thanks Betsy. I will continue on my quest to find a conservative who can respond to this material.

In this guys thread Bright Guy Disease he warns people not to be tempted into interacting with someone like me (who has "bright guy" disease). He warns:

"...don’t lose your cool and get into a battle with them—it seldom helps. (Been there, did that, still bleeding.)"

He doesn't realize that you don't have to get beat up in battles. There doesn't even have to be a battle. People can actually talk about issues with a mutual goal of finding the truth of the matter (young people are more open to this because they aren't so invested in established beliefs). Their opinions may differ in the end but can't we agree on the verifiable facts and that these facts matter? Apparently not. Humans are more interested in believing things for emotional reasons. A desire to believe what is true is, surprisingly, way down the list. Sad but true.

Freethinkers try to battle against this human tendency.

The key to not being bloodied in such situations is so simple. I wish Mr. Hall could see it:

Don't hold, and don't try to defend, untenable, indefensible positions.

That's it.

Then you never get whupped in an exchange (ever), and you don't have to resort to censorship to protect your beliefs from open examination.

D.

DAR
Of course Bob the marine is a global warming denier too:

****
BOB
Quote: Interesting Report on Antarctic Sea Ice
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25 ... 01,00.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DAR
Response:

The science showing the warming of the Antarctic is solid. You can see documentation of the temperature increase in this chart:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/steig1.jpg

Sometimes slightly warmer means more moisture which means more precipitation which can add ice. It's a little complicated.

You might read this article on the topic. It's from a science site put together by climatologists and it only just deals with the science, not the politics.

Link

This article addresses this issue while at the same time explaining why this subject has confused so many people (especially in the media).

They have a whole category of articles specifically on this issue:

Link

Note:

"Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change. Not one. And it’s been examined in minute detail by the NAS, AGU and a veritable alphabet soup of scientists and science organizations."

Maybe they're all wrong. Someone who wants to show they are all wrong will need to provide good evidence. If you educate yourself on this Antarctic issue you will see that it doesn't fall in that category.

**********
The above was submitted to Bob's forum here. Since it doesn't agree with his prejudices, he'll probably censor it.

From Bob's thread here

Excerpt:

Magic Numbers in Politics
by Thomas Sowell

Words are not the only things that enable political rhetoric to magically transform reality. Numbers can be used just as creatively-- and many voters are even more gullible about statistics than they are about words, apparently because statistics seem more objective.
The latest Congressional crusade is to clamp down on small finance companies that provide "payday loans" and check-cashing services in many low-income neighborhoods where there are few banks.

A common practice in making small loans of a few hundred dollars for a few weeks is to charge about $15 per hundred dollars lent. Politicians, the media, community activists and miscellaneous other busybodies are able to transform these numbers into annual percentage charges of several hundred percent, thereby creating moral melodramas and demands that the government "do something" about such "abuses."

DAR
Response:

u⋅su⋅ry
1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant interest.
2. an exorbitant amount or rate of interest, esp. in excess of the legal rate.

As HH points out:
"[husband works at a payday place] most... come in, pay off the $585, and immediately take $500 back out."

DAR
This is because they aren't smart, at least with their money. They're caught in a bad loop to say the least.

I've seen people do this do. People do it with credit cards when they carry a high balance at a near 20% interest rate. This is their right, the right to be dumb with their finances.

But at some point it is worth considering how badly and how repeatedly the poor should be allowed to be raped.

$500 borrowed and returned weekly, works out the same as borrowing $500 for a year. That's the principle. $85 interest/charges, per week totals: $4,420

So some poor struggling person who is admittedly very bad with money is getting kicked in the teeth with a $4,420 charge for borrowing $500.

Setting aside the charges, what is that, 884% interest? I think so.

That's not a statistical word game, it's usury, if the word usury has any meaning at all. I think it does.

*****

The above was posted to Bob's website here. He will probably censor it since it does not agree with his prejudices.

Betsy, you asked to see if anyone can come on and debate these issues without lowering themselves to name calling. I suggest DAR and Doug take a look at their own writing. It seems that they can't write more then two sentences with out using some smart ass remark. And how come when anyone disagrees with Obama they are automatically a right wing nut.

BB, I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping you'd come address some of the issues in the letter you forwarded. Instead, you fell victim to one of the classic blunders (the first of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia", and the second of which is "never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!) But the third, less well known is this: the strawman argument. No one ever said that if you disagree with Obama you're a right wing nutcase.

We could start another thread with the letter, and start over fresh if you'd like.

BB wrote: Betsy, you asked to see if anyone can come on and debate these issues without lowering themselves to name calling. I suggest DAR and Doug take a look at their own writing. It seems that they can't write more then two sentences with out using some smart ass remark.

DOUG
Write without using a dumbass remark and you won't get a smart one in return.

BB wrote:And how come when anyone disagrees with Obama they are automatically a right wing nut.

DOUG
A. Question marks are standard punctuation to end sentences that are questions.
B. It is not the case that anyone who disagrees with Obama on this list is automatically a right wing nut. I disagreed with Obama during the primaries and no one here thought I was a right wing nut. Many on the left are upset with Obama for allowing lobbyists to have jobs in his White House (despite his promise otherwise) and these lefties are not considered right wing nuts.

A better question might be: "How come when anyone is a right wing nut they automatically disagree with Obama?" Right wing nuts took to the streets last week in Tea Pary demonstrations about how high their taxes are when Obama just passed the largest tax cut in U.S. history. Even Reagan had higher taxes.

Let us know when the conservatives get a clue.

BB wrote: DAR and Doug... It seems that they can't write more then two sentences with out using some smart ass remark.

DAR
BB, point taken. We do play hard ball. Rough and tumble. Maybe sometimes it's too much. I do like a frank and spicy exchange. And I like to make jokes. What I do not do, ever, is substitute insults for reasoned argument. And I am adjustable. Often the righties we get here post nothing but insults, so I adjust to that mentality, unfortunately. If you would like to have a much more polite exchange, even zero insults, zero name calling I am all for it and will adjust to your style accordingly.

Promise.

That said, welcome to the forum, hope you are having a great day and I look forward to reading your intelligent, substantive posts which will no doubt contain very few if any "smart ass" remarks.

D.

Ok lets at least start by stopping all the finger pointing. This has turned into a debate on which side is right and if anyone thinks that any one political group is almighty and your goal is to just discredit the opposition then we go no where. First of all there is plenty of blame to go around for the current economic crisis and if anyone is taking the side that they had nothing to do with it then they are partially to blame for sitting around and watching.
This whole mess started back with Clinton when his administration pushed the banks to open up credit, get creative and open up the lending markets to others besides bank. Now Bush's administration is guilty of not stopping the run away lending. Now the banks and other lending institutions are also to blame as I am sure we can all agree. For one they disregarded smart compensation plans by paying loan officers and brokers a % of the loan regardless if it was a good one or not.There were plenty of ex-mortgage brokers that were looking for jobs thinking they were actually worth $200,000 + a year to some corporation. And their lenidng programs were definitely questionable I can attest to this as I sat through many BNI meeting each week with a mortgage broker that would pitch "If you need a loan and don't have good credit, don't have a job, don't have a down payment, need 110% of the loan I can get it for you". . And I assure you this was very common throughout the US.
We can't forget the consumer in this. I am sorry but I do believe in personal responsibility. Taking on a loan that you know you can't afford was just dumb. and please I am not talking about those that are loosing their homes due to loosing their jobs recently.
What I find really interesting is that there are people on both sides, Dems & Reps. that claim they saw this and tried to stop it. You would think that if that was the case then there should have been and easy by partisan effort to correct this.
SO lets stay awya from where the blame is, for one that gets us no where and two there is plenty of blame to go around.

Okay, good, glad you came back.

Just to clarify, the part of the letter (which you forwarded to me) you've addressed first is this:

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people
who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will
take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too
lazy or stupid to earn it..

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in
their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to
help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our
paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing
Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community
Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money."

bb wrote: Ok lets at least start by stopping all the finger pointing.

Translation: "You're kicking my ass. My ass hurts. Stop."

bb wrote: This has turned into a debate on which side is right..."

Yes, we wouldn't want to resolve disagreements by appealing to the TRUTH now, would we? That's what those darn libeals do!

bb wrote: ...and if anyone thinks that any one political group is almighty and your goal is to just discredit the opposition then we go no where.

More strawman. So if you think your position is right, then you must think your "political group is almighty." You can't just be right and believe so on the basis of evidence, right?

So once again you link up fallacious reasoning to the opponent's claim that something is true. But no finger pointing...

bb wrote:First of all there is plenty of blame to go around for the current economic crisis and if anyone is taking the side that they had nothing to do with it then they are partially to blame for sitting around and watching.

It doesn't follow from the fact that someone doesn't accept blame for something that therefore they are guilty.

And isn't it just like the GOP to start pointing fingers immediately after saying not to?

bb wrote: This whole mess started back with Clinton

For a moment there I thought you were going to start pointing fingers! Whew!

bb wrote: ...when his administration pushed the banks to open up credit, get creative and open up the lending markets to others besides bank.

OK, but that didn't give us a broken economy. What broke it is that the GOP decided that in ADDITION to having new kinds of lending markets, we should NOT HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT.

AND, the Bush administration promoted the Home Ownership Society doctrine, pushing universal home ownership. It was on the official White House website during the Bush years. I think it is still up somewhere online.

bb wrote: ...Taking on a loan that you know you can't afford was just dumb. and please I am not talking about those that are loosing their homes due to loosing their jobs recently.

I don't know how loose the homes were. Maybe they needed some foundation work. Always consult a home inspector before buying! But in any case, a LOT of the defaults are investments that rich people did, which is why the top counties that are getting $$$ from the government are Republican (i.e. rich) counties.

bb wrote:
SO lets stay awya from where the blame is, for one that gets us no where and two there is plenty of blame to go around.

Translation: "Now that I've pointed fingers, I don't want you to do the same. Remember, my ass hurts."

doug, why are you so hostile? I finally get someone who is willing to come debate with us and you start your reply by saying his ass hurts. That's offensive and embarrassing, really.

DAR
Hang in there BB, I'll have time to respond to your points tonight.

[glares at doug].

D.

Betsy wrote:doug, why are you so hostile? I finally get someone who is willing to come debate with us and you start your reply by saying his ass hurts. That's offensive and embarrassing, really.

DOUG
Someone who is willing to do what? Point fingers and then say we can't point fingers. State that there is "enough blame to go around" and then how much blame does the Bush administration get? One sentence: "Now Bush's administration is guilty of not stopping the run away lending." And then he moves on. This "gee, let's just stop blaming and all accept responsibility" thing is just a bunch of right-wing bullshit. He's not trying to assign responsibility and find some common middle ground. It's just another way of the GOP to rewrite history and try to evade responsibility. As per their usual M.O.

It's embarassing to point out that this BB guy is just LYING when he says "let's stop pointing fingers" and then gives his fingers a Pilates workout? It's embarassing that these false GOP talking points get passed around and treated if they were respectable.

This whole mess started back with Clinton when his administration pushed the banks to open up credit, get creative and open up the lending markets to others besides bank.

I think this statement deserves a little more discussion about what happened:

"In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act. Everything in between Glass-Steagall and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (i.e. Savings and Loan crisis/bust) was, in large part, the incubation period for what would take place over the nine years that would follow the passage of Gramm's Act: an experiment in deregulation.

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. " Source

Tim

bb wrote:Ok lets at least start by stopping all the finger pointing. This has turned into a debate on which side is right and if anyone thinks that any one political group is almighty and your goal is to just discredit the opposition then we go no where.

DAR
No group "is almighty" and no "side is right" all the time. But one side certainly has screwed up royally.

BB
First of all there is plenty of blame to go around for the current economic crisis and if anyone is taking the side that they had nothing to do with it then they are partially to blame for sitting around and watching.

DAR
This seems to be a false choice (false dichotomy). No one would say one side "had nothing to do with it." However, since the far right had nearly eight years of control starting with Bush it seems fair to say one side had vastly more to do "with it." Can you imagine if the country had performed as it did under Clinton? I wonder if Bush and his republican congress would be getting the credit then? Of course they would. And deservedly so. I can show twenty standard, common sense and very important categories that were very good under Clinton and very bad under Bush (i.e. the stock market rose 330% under Clinton and fell 20% under Bush). At what point are conservatives going to start taking responsibility for the profound failure of their policies?

BB
This whole mess started back with Clinton when his administration...

DAR
This one is real hard to swallow. Look BB, Clinton may get a little of the blame, but he didn't even have a majority of congress for much of his term. Bush did and he locked the democrats out when he could. We are to believe Clinton hid a little bomb somewhere that took nearly ten years to blow up in Bush's face? This is not believable.
Incidentally, my rightwing friend Bill thinks much of the success of Clinton's period should be credited to.... wait for it.... Reagan.

I agree there is not much use crying over the spilt milk. It isn't going to clean it up. And I largely agree with your description of the stupid loans people were signing and the stupid lenders giving them, and the reasons you give. But you say: "I am sorry but I do believe in personal responsibility." No need to apologize BB, I DO TOO. Repeatedly you say not to assign blame, point fingers, and then you say this?

I don't see how taking responsibility and assigning blame are anything but completely synonymous. "Taking responsibility" is almost always used in the context of someone getting some blame.

When are conservatives going to take a little responsibility for what they have done to this country? How bad would they have to "spill the milk," how obvious would it have to be, before they would take responsibility for their actions? This is truly astonishing. If Gore had been put in place as president (as he surely should have been) and had conducted the office exactly as Bush had (and had the support of both houses of Congress, as Bush had) I would be a republican today. I would be so disgusted with the democrats I could probably vote for Palin. With such a record the "Democrats" would have NO credibility. And this is where we are today with The Republican Record.

That's my opinion. You are probably not going to agree with it. I am not so much interested in opinions but facts we can actually nail down. So let's get into specifics. Let's look at some facts. What about the specific factual errors I have pointed out in this "I'm Tired" letter? Most of the letter is ranting and lots of insults and none of it referenced or backed up, but when it does stray into making specific factual claims it often just passes along misinformation. Can we agree that truth is important and passing along falsehoods is bad?

The letter claims:

"I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural
expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were
wonderful."

As I have shown in this thread, with references, that's just a lie. Does Bob the marine want to correct this or are rightwingers just going to keep passing this "Great Letter" around and misinforming (i.e. lying) to people?

Is it appropriate to keep kicking at Kerry's war record when he volunteered to fight and Bush, a hawk, made sure to take a pass? Really?

The letter claims "no one is allowed to debate" global warming. This is nonsense. It was debated in the late eighties, the deniers lost the battle in the science realm (like the creationists did 130 years ago) and decided (like the cigarette companies in the sixties) to work toward misinforming the public. It works, for a while. But even that's getting harder to do, thanks to the efforts of Nobel Prize winners like Gore.

The author of the letter claims "our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's,...". Bob the marine is apparently ignorant of the fact that Al Gore buys carbon offsets so he in fact doesn't have a carbon foot print. Conservatives like to pretend that Gore traveled around in private jets to get rich from promoting his movie and that he's inconsistent for having not used a bicycle instead. He didn't use private jets, he bought carbon offsets, and he donated all of the money to charity. What's the guy have to do to get people to stop lying about him? (I have swatted down all of these myths and many more about Gore many times, examples provided upon request).

Anyway, don't want to go on too much. So glad you're here. I agreed with a lot of what you said. Hope I wasn't too rough. I'll stop now.

Darrel.
-----------------------------
"Bush inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton when he took office in 2001. Bush quickly squandered that and then proceeded to rack up gigantic budget deficits every year of his two terms in office. Under Bush, the national debt grew by more than $4 trillion: the biggest debt increase of any president in U.S. history.

When Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. At the end of Bush's two terms, the debt had skyrocketed to more than $9.849 trillion. And remember: Bush enjoyed a Republican Senate and House of Representatives during most of his time in office." --LINK