If Troll Patrol was Just This Easy at AB
Norwegian boy fends off wolves with Creed song
He was listening to “Overcome” by Creed, an arguably Christian rock band, and apparently, the wolves were not fans.
(Initial reports indicated Walter shooed the wolves away with a Megadeth song,)
Ah yes the old Creed vs Megadeath conundrum. Throw in some Black Sabbath and we could have a flame war to remember!
A very interesting peerspective on the control of vermin. No, I don’t expect that loud and obnoxious music or the flailing of arms is likely to disuade the trolls that are becoming increasingly obnoxious. But I believe that Montana ranchers have an effective, if unfriendly, approach to fending off the wolves. I should think that Sarah Palin would be the first to approve of such methodology in the effort at troll control. A real Alaskan approach to bothersome critters.
A very interesting perspective on the control of vermin. No, I don’t expect that loud and obnoxious music or the flailing of arms is likely to dissuade the trolls that are becoming increasingly obnoxious. But I believe that Montana ranchers have an effective, if unfriendly, approach to fending off the wolves. I should think that Sarah Palin would be the first to approve of such methodology in the effort at troll control. A real Alaskan approach to bothersome critters.
Jack,
I sounds like you are advocating shooting your ideological opponents. Hmmm. I guess because you are a left-winger this is ok, however for Beck, Palin etc. it is not ok.
Jack,
I sounds like you are advocating shooting your ideological opponents. Hmmm. I guess because you are a left-winger this is ok, however for Beck, Palin etc. it is not ok. Right? 🙂
Jack,
I sounds like you are advocating shooting your ideological opponents. Hmmm. I thought that was the exclusive province of the Tea Party. I guess because you are a left-winger this is ok, however for Beck, Palin etc. it is not ok. Right? 🙂
sammy,
It sounds like you admit that advocating shooting your ideological opponents is something the Tea Party does. I guess you believe that Beck and Palin etc do this and it is not ok. Right?
Joel, give it/us a break. We all know who is making which claims re: shootings.
This article was about trolls, and, I think, aimed at the handful of non-liberals commenting here.
Why is it we can not have an open discussion without getting into snarkland? The timing of Bruce’s troll article is suspicious after an active discussion.
Just the dishonest ones.
Creed, megadeath and Black Sabbath together would not be able to scare off the Werewolves of London
Or the angry, ranting ones? 😉
I suppose if you wanted to drive the wolves insane hip-hop would work.
For the foreseeable future any mention of firearms or anything related is going to cause shouting and handwringing and fingerpointing oh my.
CoRev if you would actually agree to stay on the specific topic of the post we could have an honest discussion. But your definition of “open” seems to mean “whatever CoRev can drag to the argument so as to avoid addressing the posters point”.
I don’t want to talk about what you want to. That is why AB introduced Open Threads, specifically to give YOU CoRev a place to play games in your own sandbox. But you insist on disrupting discussion on not just my and many, many other posts in a pure attempt to re-introduce the conservative agenda. And don’t seem to have a deep committment to honesty in doing so. And then play wounded victim if anyone tells you to cut the crap.
“OH that Bruce guy! He is so, so mean to me! Sniff!” Come on CoRev channel your inner Angle and put your Man Pants on.
Bruce as you can see, it is not simple.
I think CoRev genuinely believes himself. The fact that you and I find his “logic” preposterous is … well, it’s not something we can convince HIM of, or defend “in principle” in any way I can think of.
Maybe just limiting comments to size and frequency would at least keep him from destroying a thread through sheer volume.
I did not listen to the O man last night. Too hard on my nerves. But reports this morning are that he said nothing that could not be solved by “Nothing” or, the more formal “Northwest Plan,” or even CBO Option number three. The problem seems to be getting him to hear that, and understand that, and explain it to the people, and lead.
In my efforts to get ANYONE to hear this, and understand this, … I have been treated like a troll by some. So I have to be a little sympathetic to “trolls” even when I think they are likely to be deliberately sabotaging efforts to actually understand the problem.
Bruce, you posted an angry rant that had its core tenet challenged. Now you claim I went off topic which was Ryan’s road MP? Which is there because of the high potential for a near future melt down.
Yes, I am a conservative. Conservatives have alternative views. Get over it! Get over yourself!
No Bruce, there is a major and significant difference between the behavior of the troll and that of the persistent town crier trying to be heard with the news. it is difficult to get the news out beyond the cacophony created by the ideological trolls. As I recently had said in a message to Dan, “And it is becoming increasingly obvious that his intention is to cut the heart out of AB. He gets a great deal of assistance from Sammy, and both are more interested in destruction via obstruction. It’s similar to when thousands of coordinated users log on at the same moment in order to bring down a site through over load. They’re trying to do the same thing by way of multitudes of words and references that don’t have to address the specific issue being discussed, but only have to sound as though they fit into the debate. “Lincoln had a beard.” “No, Lincoln was six feet tall.” Same subject. Different point.”
Review CoRev’s long winded and seemingly well referenced comments. Carom shots in almost all instances. Just enough off the mark to bounce around the crux of a point while seeming to be on topic. The sheer volume is indicative of obstruction via distraction. Sammy has picked up on the technique. And then they will in tandem claim to be documenting a point while actually pulling attention away from the point being discussed. Very similar to the comments recently of Dan Levit who continuously asked that you repeat points you have well established previously.
No CoRev, you need to listen to your own advice. You provide nothing new beyond your talking points. You waste a load of time and space with your specious arguments and your comments on the Ryan Road Map thread are a case in point. Long winded and meandering with no substantive evidence other than what you, and Ryan, claim to be clearly demonstrated. You’re not a conservative in any true sense of the word. An obstructionist is the better title for your efforts. You’ve convinced no one on AB of any point you’ve tried to advance, but you continue to fill the space because that is your only intention, to fill space and waste time.
Jack, there are few conservatives posting here, and y’all have claimed each of us are trolls for providing dissenting view points.
Several of us have cautioned Dan about AB becoming just an echo chamber of liberal talking points and an exemplary of the “angry liberal”. We know of some liberals who have stopped writing and commenting because of the extremist liberal tone. We have seen conservatives banned because they became too strident or vulgar, but we do not see the same of the liberal commenters/writers.
Still we come back to provide altermative view points, especially on politics. If Dan wants us to leave, all he need do is email us. He has, as far as I know, all of our addresses.
CoRev,
Since the November election when the Dems got handed their hat in a historic landslide the “angry liberal’ rants here at AB have increased very noticably. The leftist agenda was rejected at the polls and there is a good chance the Senate will swing to the Rs in 2012. Obama has already moved into re-election mode and will run further to the center and (again) away from the left. Add to the specter of California and Illinois literally going bankrupt due to leftwing anti-big business and huge government bloat and you see failure of the model everywhere.
Add to this frustration that their nanny-state plans have just gotten stymied in November is the utter frustration with Obama himself. They poured way to much hope and change into the inexperienced blank slate that was candidate Obama. He then didn’t deliver. GITMO is still open, we have 50K+ troops in Iraq and 100K+ troops in Afghanistan. Combat ops on the PAK-Afghan borded have accelerated as Obama tries to replay the successful surge in Iraq in Afghanistan. Then all the war related laws passed with huge bi-partisan majorities under Bush are still the law. In foreign policy this is truely a Bush third term on steroids. Yet the antiwar left has all but disappeared. Obviously all these actions are just fine as long as the D team does them.
The utter frustration is palpable. Yet there is nothing they can do about it. Obama will not get primaried and so he’s the best they will get (in their opinion) until 2016 at the earliest.
And it gets harder on AB specifically to discuss points since we don’t agree on the basics nor sometimes even on the definition of words.
But if Rdan wants us gone he has my email or can just put up a post asking us to leave and letting AB become another leftwing echo chamber…its his turf and his call.
Islam will change
Hilarious rant, Buffy. What color is the sky in your world?
“And it gets harder on AB specifically to discuss points since we don’t agree on the basics nor sometimes even on the definition of words.”
And this post helps . . . how?
“Obviously all these actions are just fine as long as the D team does them.”
Kinda like the deficit, eh, Buffy? Just fine as long as the R team is increasing it.
Actually, I haven’t seen any groundswell of support on the left for Obama’s policies in Iraq and Afganistan, so your “just fine” strikes me as fundamentally dishonest. But in your binary tribal world, you apparently need to project your approach to political decision-making on others.
These last two comments by CoRev and then Buff are good examples of the deceptive manner of the contributions made here by our so called conservative participants. First CoRev comes up with, “We know of some liberals who have stopped writing and commenting because of the extremist liberal tone.” How does one verify that comment? Even if names were given we would not know the reasons behind any one person discontinuing their particitpation on AB. We have only CoRev’s word for what he says.
And this, “and y’all have claimed each of us are trolls for providing dissenting view points.” Certainly not all divergent ;poingts of view have been characterized as the work of a troll. Another example of the exaggerated manner of Co’s commentary and accusations. A clear case of the pot and kettle accusation. And lastly from CopRev, “We have seen conservatives banned because they became too strident or vulgar,” Conveniently left off is the absence of facts that was characteristic of those vulgar contributions. And I’d suggest that less reactionary contributors have not typically been banned because their comments are less strident and more frequently have been provoked by our more reactionary commentators who wear their conservative badge inaccurately.
What of Bufff’s log winded assertion that the 2010 passage of the House to the Republicans was the result of a too liberal slant of the legislation coming out of Obama’s first two years in office. Some in the mainstream media would point in this same direction. It is just so much easier than any in depth analysis of the contributing electoral factors that actually played a role in the Democrats’ loos of the House and some Senate seats. Obama has shown himself to be a classic centrist with an inclination to move right when the wind so blows in his efforts to pass legislation. Health Care and the Income Tax Extension capitulations being good example of this tendency. Did a President ever ask more repeatedly for a bipartisan effort with fewer good results?
The bank bailout started by Bush and continued by Obama was a liberal effort? Is that not absurd on its face? And the continuation of war in the east is yet another sign of Obama’s left wing inclinations? If there’s not enough noise from the left I’d suggest that those that represent what passes for a left contingent and have access to publication are so dumb founded by the current administration’s strong centrist position that they don’t even know where to begin to voice their frustrations. War has the media on its side. Fancy that.
Joel, Jack et al, some of us have been here for several years. We have exchanged emails and phone numbers, and we do talk to each other. Sometimes even about AB. Surprised that we have the emails for most of the moderators and major commenters here?
Yes, some interest has dropped in writing articles and commenting on AB. I will not drop names just to justify your curiosity.
You’re apparently never wrong. Cheap shot to suggest that interest has dropped on a blog that was recently estimated to be among the twenty most influential financial blog sites. An interesting contradiction.
Jack, you missed the point, which was AB is being taken over by the angry liberal crew. Yes, you are one of them.
Those outside that group are gang attacked, and when we stand our ground we get called names and see veiled threats of banning.
Buff’s point is that the anger may just be misplaced due to disappointment in your party’s/candidate’s performance. I would include realization that the policies you folks have espoused for years are failures.
CoRev
I know of no way to “rationally” convince you that your arguments are circular. But let me offer you a clue: I knew conservatives. I voted for conservatives. You are not a conservative. Unfortunately in your case I can’t even call you a radical, which is what most of those ranting republican these days are. You are just a person with his own strange logic system. One that, I, at least, as said, cannot penetrate.
So when you hear me being angry, try to think of it as the anger of a real conservative who has seen his “label” taken over by the insane right.
Second clue: Social Security is not welfare. It is insurance. Nothing is more “conservative” than insurance.
Rev–I don’t think this blog has declined at all in the length of time I have been reading and commenting on it. It is very informative on a number of topics of which I have little working knowledge. I don’t think that there is any reason for you, sammy or others to take offense in the way others express their disagreement with you. Pretty much in line with other blogs, as far as I can see, most of the time.
I cannot agree that rabidly liberal people are persecuting conservatives who comment here. That isn’t true. So, Bruce expresses his view and you express yours. Even steven. No need to make more of it than that. The worst that can happen to any commenter or blogger is that they become boring. I fear you are starting to fit into that category. So, you can afford to let this topic go and I suggest you do. NancyO
Dale, let me try your approach to dialog:
Coberly on several of your statements I tend to agree with you, but on others I can not.
What in heaven’s name are you talking about or responding to? This thread has nothing to do with SS, but your hyper-sensitivity now makes SS a point, and they claim I digress from the subject. Sheesh!!!
Dale when you say: “You are just a person with his own strange logic system. One that, I, at least, as said, cannot penetrate.” It is more an indictment of you than anyone else. Millions of voters understand what I have presented here regarding the deficit and the potential for a fiscal meltdown, and how they are impacted by mandatory spending. Obama understands it. The deficit Commission really understands it. Congressman Ryan fully understands it, and if you read my reference last night by Joe Scarborough he understands it.
You are either in denial, willfully ignorant or too arrogant to accept that there are other views about the debt, deficit, and SS. It isn’t their logic that is flawed, but yours.
See its all in the style and form of what and how it’s said.
CoRev,
There are not more than four or five commentators here that routinely reply to the reactionary (Coberly, I think that’s the word you were looking for. Not radical.) rants posted on AB. There are at least as many reactionaries here. There is Bruce, Dale and me. On the other hand there is Buff, Sammy and you. Then there are a few others on both sides of the conceptual divide. To suggest that you are being ganged up on or run off of the reservation is absurd. The numbers are balanced. It’s the distance from reality that remains unequal. Paul Ryan’s Road Map is a poor place for the right to start if looking for a rational approach to government in general and taxation in particular.
I knew Creed was good for something. Nobody ever believed me! 🙂
CoRev
well, that’s almost my point. we cannot, by any reasoning that I know about, convince each other that the other person is illogical.
the rest of my comment flowed from your calling me an angry liberal, and calling yourself a conservative. i want you to at least hear that from my point of view, you are not a conservative; I am. I threw in SS because Rand Paul seems to think it is welfare. It is not.
In my troubled mind, this comment, and my previous one, are attempts at a sort of peace offering. You see, from my point of view, it is you who are the ranter. And, no, that is not just another insult. It is a sincere effort to remind you that we see things differently. If you could make your comments with that in mind, we might find a way to talk to each other.
Jack
I don’t think “reactionary” is the word I was looking for. Though maybe I don’t understand what other people mean by reactionary. I think it means a person opposed to change and generally willing to use oppressive force against those who advocate change.
I used the word radical because I wanted to emphasize that it is the insane right that is advocating change from long accepted practice and modes of living together. And yes, I wanted to use a word that is usually associated with “the left” in order to make clear that it is “the right” that is calling for a revolution, plotting the destruction of the American way of life.
CoRev
good to hear you are a classical Liberal. the problem I have with you is that I can’t follow the logic that takes you from a classical liberal (conservative) position to embracing policies that would turn America into something like a modern middle ages with lords and serfs.
if it helps you to understand me, at least, i have a similar view about the fecklessness of the Democratic Party and “progressives” in general. The difference is, for me, that Dems and progressives still believe in “love thy neighbor” even if they can’t remember where they got the idea.
CoRev
good to hear you are a classical Liberal. the problem I have with you is that I can’t follow the logic that takes you from a classical liberal (conservative) position to embracing policies that would turn America into something like a modern middle ages with lords and serfs.
if it helps you to understand me, at least, i have a similar view about the fecklessness of the Democratic Party and “progressives” in general. The difference is, for me, that Dems and progressives still believe in “love thy neighbor” even if they can’t remember where they got the idea.
to attend to the arguably strictly logical issues, i would suggest beginning with your repeated claim that 98% of tax income is used to pay for entitlements and interest. i believe that an honest person would see that that is a dishonest way to present the numbers. you could as correctly (that is incorrectly) say that 98% of tax income is used to pay for defense and interest… i don’t know the exact numbers: the point is you can’t just pick out a part of the budget and say THAT’s where the money goes. And certainly the “interest” is not paying for … say… Social Security.
as for “differences of opinion” about Social Security, NO. the Petersons are liars. That is not a matter of opinion.
You may have noted Rand Paul calling SS welfare. Last time they attacked Social Security, the claim was that you could get a better return on your money in the stock market. Well, it can’t be both. If it’s “your money”, it’s not welfare.
These guys say whatever they think will fool the rubes at the moment. And you, my friend, appear to me… appear to me… to be one of those fooled.
CoRev
and read Ryans road map. He SAYS its about cutting the deficit. It’s really about cutting taxes.
You have to learn not to trust what people SAY. Even, especially, if you like the sound of it.
The way to cut the deficit is to raise taxes at least until the stuff we already bought is paid for. Then if you don’t like taxes, don’t buy so much stuff. But at least recognize that people pay for their own SS. It is not “the government” paying the lazy poor.
CoRev,
There is a Democratic alternative. Its to just keep printing more money. You can read just that on some of the village blogs over and over again. It was there in the Presidents SOTU address. Spend more money that the Feds don’t have. Spend, Spend, Spend – and without even the tax part of the Dem ‘tax and spend’ mantra anymore.
We are going to have a $1.5 Trillion deficit this year. According to Obama himself we will have larger deficits than ANY under Bush (or anyone else for that matter) for the next decade. Unemployment, though not going to my predicted 15%, is stuck at around 9.5% and there are millions who no longer count against the U3 number since they’ve dropped off the roles. U6 is sitting just under 20%. I used to rail about Bush spending like a drunken sailor, but Obama is the drunken sailor on crack.
Yet the denial on the left, and Jack/Joel here in paticular is unbeleivable. The Democrats had a lock on government for two years. Yet they overwelmingly continued their decade long bi-partisan support for the war and the Bush policies surronding the war. Obama led the way with the surge in Afghanistan – overwelmingly supported by the anti-war left since I have yet to see any willing to risk sunburn on the mall in protest. Or did I miss it?
The idea that the Dems were the party of fiscal responsibility has been blown out of the water since they retook congress in Nov 2006. Since then the deficit has exploded, spending has not slowed, and the economy has gone in the trash can with no end in sight.
Yet coberly continues to focus on SS? Why? The general fund is so deep in the red we may never bail it out. And neither party gives a damn. SS is a sideshow, since as Greenspan once said (I paraphrase), “I can garentee the payment of SS money owed, I cannot garentee its purchasing power.” Bottom line – you will get your SS check and you will buy a loaf of bread with it. Whoopee!
Ryan’s plan may be total fiscal insanity. So what, at least he starts at the correct point – the rapidly growing deficit is unsustainable. Maybe if we could start there, we could find our way out of this, but I doubt we can even all agree on that.
(cue Ilsm with a rant ending in cutting the US military down to the national guard and city SWAT teams)
Islam will change
coberly,
Now I get to ask what planet are you living on?
It is Obama and the Dems who are making the raid on SS, not the Rs.
Its the Dems who constantly try to restrict 1ts Amendment rights of Speech and religion, not the Rs.
Its the Dems who constantly try to restrict, or just do away with, 2nd Amendment right of the citizens to bare arms.
And the assault on economic liberty and property rights continue to come from the left and not the right. You do remember Kelo don’t you? Or the many, many calls for nationalization of the health care industry? With the government decided how much a doctor can charge for his services? Or the elimination of the secret ballot in union votes? All from the Dems and the left.
And of course the ever present Dem mantra that continues to expand the scope and reach of the central federal government at every oppurtunity. Yep, Dems and the left still.
In every case the left especially and the Dems continually restrict individual liberty.
And you, yourself, have stated many times that the dumb people in America need to be told what to do, how to live, where to eat, etc, etc all for the good of the children (TM). Coberly you, yourself advocate dictatorship. Many times.
And you say the right is plotting the destruction of the American way of life? Bwahahahaha!
Best laugh of the week.
Islam will change
Buff, there seems to be three themes in the liberal/democratic dialog: 1) class warfare (tax the rich, more, and even more); 2) war is baadd, and war spending is even bbaaddeerr; and 3) spending is good especially when it is for social welfare programs and does not cause deficits. This latter is not so much voiced, but because spending cuts is absent in their discussions is obvious.
FEW here admit there is a looming fiscal problem in the US Federal budget. Even less understand the ramifications. Even thought the president references the debt/deficit problems they ignore it or can not admit it is there.
I have yet to get any liberal here admit that such a deficit/budget problem even exists. Amazing!!!!
Dale said: “ I threw in SS because Rand Paul seems to think it is welfare. It is not.”
Rand Paul was not part of any discussion here. You added SS because you are hyper-sensitive which causes you to not see beyond SS.
You aslo said: “In my troubled mind, this comment,…” is a result of that hyper-sensitivity.
Dale said: “ I threw in SS because Rand Paul seems to think it is welfare. It is not.”
Rand Paul was not part of any discussion here. You added SS because you are hyper-sensitive which causes you to not see beyond SS.
You also said: “In my troubled mind, this comment,…” is a result of that hyper-sensitivity.
Dale, why the hyoperbole? “embracing policies that would turn America into something like a modern middle ages with lords and serfs.” There isn’t anything being proposed, discussed or even contemplated which fits that over stated description. If you are referring, even again, to addressing SS as a potential future problem, then it is just more evidence of your hyper-sensitivity.
The only one fooled here is you who willfully ignore the evidence of how entitlements (including SS) will impact future spending and worse borrowing.
Dale you said: “that 98% of tax income is used to pay for entitlements and interest. i believe that an honest person would see that that is a dishonest way to present the numbers.” Dale, what part of mandatory (Required by law or rules; compulsory: “wearing helmets is mandatory“) spending do you not understand?
You then go off on another tangent associated with the Petersons and R Paul, the Peters re: SS. Who are you trying to convince?
CoRev
that you can’t recognize self deprecating irony suggests to me that you have difficulty understanding the world around you. I added SS because Rand Paul added it. And you regularly cite Rand Paul as offering a rational answer to the deficit, as opposed to us angry liberals who have no plan.
you see, all these things are connected by fairly natural “this leads to this” associations. only when you get hyper rigid about controlling the “debate” on your terms would you object to such.
if we ever reached the point where we were debating a specific remedy to a specific problem, it might make sense to “limit the debate” to “relevant” issues. you seem to want to allow only statements that advance your argument and disallow any statements that advance actually understanding what is at issue.
now, i have to go out and build a shelter for my new pump. that is a highly logical activity.
well, hardly you. but i used to work in a mental hospital, so i am used to talking to people i can’t convince of anything.
no, CoRev, i have done the math. and moreover I know the difference between a borrower and a lender.
sadly, my fears about a new Dark Ages are not hyperbole.
Buff
greenspan was lying. SS is wage indexed. it will always pay out in the same dollars that wages are being paid in at the time.
SS is not a sideshow to people who hope to retire without winning the lottery.
The fiscal problem of the US can be solved by raising the taxes back to where they were before they were cut with the cut that was going to pay for itself but didn’t.
Buff
i am not responsible for the associations your brain makes.
people have lived in extended families for about two million years. during all of that time some of the people have had to take care of the rest of the people at least in terms of organizing their work and sometimes by feeding them with the product of the labor of others. only the modern Republicans think they can change basic human nature so we all stand alone in “free competition” with each other.
you are watching a video of selected distortions brought to you by the nice man who promises you more money than you can ever hope to eat.
Buff
i am not responsible for the associations your brain makes. This conversation is a waste of time.
coberly,
Sorry, but once again you are unable to face the fact of what you have advocated for for the years I’ve been here. What you propose is dictatorship, maybe the smiley-faced liberal fascism kind, but still dictatorship.
And of course you never even attempt to refute facts that don’t fit with your preconcived notion of reality. read my 8:36 again. I can back everything I said up with facts. To be honets they are bascially indisputable, so your correct talking with someone no longer connected to reality is a waste of time…drop us a line when you’ve returned from fantasy land and want to discuss reality.
Islam will change
buff
your 8:36 contains not a single fact. you don’t seem to recognize the difference between “facts” and your opinions.
you like to jump from a modest argument, like cutting wasteful defense programs, to world-ending conclusions: unilateral disarmament. or, in my case, replacing cash welfare with an enlightened jobs program becomes “dictatorship” in your mind. dealing with details and nuance is hard, but if we are going to get anywhere we are going to have to learn to try.
as for individual liberty, strange as it may seem, i resent restrictions on mine as much as you do. but growing up means learning to accept some restrictions for the greater good. you are a pilot. can you imagine flying in an environment where everybody says “goddam government can’t tell me what to do.” ?
i’ll check back this evening to see if you “even attempt to refute ‘facts’..” but you might need to find a friend to help you tell facts from your opinions. and i, at least, don’t expect this effort will have been worth my time.
I’ll add one last comment to this thread. I agree with Coberly’s assessment of the situation, that some don’t really concern themselves with facts and focus on their own ideological point of view and claim to support same with reams of irrelevant “data.” As to CoRev’s repeated harping on how he and a few others are being harangued because of their “conservative” opinions, it simply can’t be demonstrated on the AB site unless one considers accurate and repeated criticism as an harangue. So what would be expected on a site that clearly labels itself “ANGRY BEAR A slightly left of center economic commentary on news, politics and the economy.”
It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to recognize that right wing ideological screed repeated ad infinitum is going to provoke a strong response from the majority of the commentators who visit the site on a regular basis. It’s like watching and listening to Fox News or Glenn Beck and wondering when they’re going to get serious about discussing the good of all of the nation rather than just the good of the One Percenters. Granted it can be personally more rewarding, in a financial way, to flack for the rulers of the economy. Worse yet when it appears that their only intent is to obfuscate the discussion with repetition of unsupported statements that are generally contrary to the facts of the issue.
Jack, you are demonstrating my point. Many of you fail to address the point and fall directly into personal comment or even snark attack.
Why has no one answered my oft repeated question? “Do you folks believe that the budget deficit is a serious problem?”
Yes, the deficit is a problem. The solution is the question. Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cut a trillion dollars out of the expense side of the budget. Cut corporate welfare and close corporate tax loopholes to improve the income side of the ledger. And what about those unearned incomes that keep our financial elite so comfy and warm without paying their fair share of the taxes.
With that said I’ll point out that you, CoRev, have done what you continuously accuse others of doing, not addressing the questions and criticisms directed at you and instead changing the direction of your attention. As you have just done. You seem to think that by repeating yourself often enouogh your words will suddenly take on an aura of truth. That’s your fantasy, not the reality.
And just to reiterate in case it wasn’t perfectly clear to you and your reactionary cohorts,
“ANGRY BEAR (is) A slightly left of center economic commentary on news, politics and the economy.”
Come with facts and a reasonable argument based upon those facts if you expect to get any traction from most of the ABs. So far you shown that you’re an expert in conflict, confusion and confabulation with an intention to confound the discussion.
Jack, this is what you said about me and my commenting: “Review CoRev’s long winded and seemingly well referenced comments. Carom shots in almost all instances. Just enough off the mark to bounce around the crux of a point while seeming to be on topic. The sheer volume is indicative of obstruction via distraction. Sammy has picked up on the technique. And then they will in tandem claim to be documenting a point while actually pulling attention away from the point being discussed.”
Seemingly? Or well documented? Just because we disagree with the point does make a comment a carom shot!
Bouncing around a point is providing alternative views with substantiation. Unless, ofcouorse, you can not or are willfully ignoring that there are alternative views.
Tandem comments happen seldom. Too often there is only one or two conservatives willing to put up with the personal attacks or verballing done here. Done, too often, by you.
Finally, thank you for answering my question re: the importance of the deficit. You do realize that it took putting you in a corner to get that begrudged admission?
Finally, your one sided solution raise taxes, isn’t enough to put more than a dent in the deficit. I don’t understand the reluctance to admit the problem existed and that cutting spending is also part of the solution.
BTW, what is it you think was the point of this article?
‘You do realize that it took putting you in a corner to get that begrudged admission?’
Strawman alert!!! The question was never whether or not the budget deficit is a serious issue. The question is how to either better fund the necessary programs and activities as well as cutting the truly unnecessary and wasteful examples of same. War is wasteful and GE Corp pays virtually no taxes in the US. Those are just two good examples which emphasize the misplaced emphasis of the Ryan Road Map.
“Finally, your one sided solution raise taxes, isn’t enough to put more than a dent in the deficit. I don’t understand the reluctance to admit the problem existed and that cutting spending is also part of the solution.”
Another good example of a strawman by the name of Canard. My comment included both significant cuts to military spending and corporate welfare and asking all Americans to pay their fair share is hardly one-sided or inappropriate. You ignore the examples of waste that you don’t want to admit to and you prefer to tax the working class rahter than ask the wealthiest to pull their own load. Your point of view is a joke any place other than Tea Party Plaza. Try to remember your visiting Angry Bear where the perspective is slightly left of center and the participants expect a perspective that benefits all Americans not just the rich and powerful.
Jack, I’ve asked this same question about the seriousness of the deficit, albeit framed in several different forms, in attempts to elicit answers. You alone have finally after several weeks answered in the affirmative. Bravo to you.
Your solution is almost laughably small. CBO annoounced yesterday that the estimated 2011 deficit would be $1.48T that’s up form $1.07T so we can safely say that CBO thinks keeping the Bush tax cuts reduced potential revenue by $.41T. If we give you the benefit of the doubt on your remaining proposals we could maybe expect (do you think more companies won’t follow the GE tax model?) revenues to go up by and added $.225T.
So assuming a successful optimistic implementation of your program we end up with an annual deficit of ~$.845T. Which BTW is twice the highest annual Bush deficit. You may call your proposal by any name you wish, but it is pitifully inadequate to reach even Bush parity. Neither does Ryans’, nut that is why I keep harping on the seriousness of the deficit issue.
As to my visiting AB. I have come here for several years now because it fostered an open forum for discussion all viewpoints. Yours and other commenters are the ones changing that environment by trying to close down open discussions because they reflectr a different view point. If that’s the environment you are most comfortable stay at dKos, DU or HuffPo. Remember, being A slightly left of center blog does not necessarily mean angry far left liberal.
Co Rev
i have answered your oft repeated question more than once. You just can’t remember.
Dale, refresh my memory, please.
“Dale, refresh my memory, please.” CoRev
Once again, exactly as criticized and then ignored, by you. Making a fallacious point and then asking for a repetition of oft provided answers.
“Your solution is almost laughably small.” CoRev
Again another example of your misrepresentation of what others say. I clearly provided what I described as examples of ways to approach the deficit and you change that to “your solution” and suggest that it is inadequate. I note that you completely ignore the suggestion to get out of iraq and Afghanistan and reap a huge savings. You are yet to address that suggestion which has been made multiple times.
Also, by your own arithmatic only two simple suggestions have cut the deficit by 43% and I haven’t even gotten into the flow of taxing the wealthiest citizens an amount that would be appropriate to the enormous benefits that they reap from the way in which our government functions.
Jack, I included the cut of war funding. The fact you can not compare estimates is, in itself, telling about how serious you actually were in your proposal. IIRC we had a disussion where you claimed war costs to be ~$1T/Yr. That being larger than the entire Defense budget was an amazing statement.
But, the defense/war cut was included in my calculations as well as the Corp Tax increase. Do your own estimate for the nebulous have those mean ole rich folk pay even more, and then we can split those hairs.
Bruce, you’re correct: “To which I am sure you will answer ‘well almost double’.” I drew from a chart without the actual numbers. So we can split hairs whether my calculation of Jack’s proposal $.845T is significantly different from doubling $.438T or $.876T a difference of $31B. Regrettably that difference still ramains in the noise level for our annual budgets.
Furthermore I did not repudiate Bush’s impacts, but will discuss 2009 as a Bush/Obama ,shared year. Obama’s stimulus plan was passed in Feb 2009, leaving seven months of FY2009 and that year’s largest deficit buster his/Democratic responsibilty.
Your arguments don’t compute, and are at best fringe issues. You started this thread as snark, and continue.
The wolves have good taste in music! I would go for megadeath over creed anytime 🙂