Arizona Shooting Spree, Congresswoman, judge, among victims...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not necessarily, every CBO forcast comes with sets of assumptions, some of them mandated by Congress when they get CBO to do their projections, so while CBO can be considered non-partisan, that doesn't mean that the guidelines they are operating under are always non-partisan.

    For instance from the same link as before:

    And sure enough that reduction was delayed in June of last year and postponed again this December through all of 2011.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You do have to make some assumptions to do any kind of projection, how is this partisan?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    It is non partisan when the assumptions yield a result favorable to Republicans/Tea Partiers. It is partisan when the results favor Democrats. Republicans were hasty to cite CBO when the results favored them. When that was no longer the case, Republicans/Tea Partiers suddenly decide that the CBO is not credible. Gee, why am I not suprised.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Because Congress can, and does, dictate a number of the assumptions the CBO has to use in their projections, like that the cuts in medicare payments would occur, but then the same Congress reversed itself on that issue.

    Arthur
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You and I know that rational discussion of the issues isn't what anyone is complaining about here.
     
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    So consistent that it cannot be summarized?


    What I realize about you is that you don't really know what you're talking about because you don't have a case. It seems it is YOU who doesn't listen. But maybe you'll listen to this

    Truthdig's 'Left, Right and Center' with Robert Scheer, Tony Blankley, Arianna Huffington and Matt Miller:

    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/left_right_center_after_arizona_20110114/

    See Tiassa that's not only what you call civil discussion but its a discussion based on facts not supposition. As Ariana Huffington says there is no evidence that political rhetoric is the cause of the shooting but there need no be evidence to discuss the issue of political rhetoric. I agree with her. To use the shooting as an opportunity to discuss this as if they are somehow cause and effect is simply wrong. She goes on to say that this is the reason why the Huffington Post only detailed the facts and not take part in any unwarranted conclusions. One called it 'demagoguery' Everyone AGREED left, right and center that to blame the shooting on political rhetoric was PREPOSTEROUS! They discuss gun control, reasons why no one intervened on Loughner earlier and rising discontent because of economic disenfranchisement which is what SHOULD be discussed (you can refer back to the end of my last PM and perhaps that may give you a clue

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2011
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    The problem is one man's convictions appear to be the other man's distortion and lies. I have MAJOR problems with the assumptions on the BENEFIT side of the health bill and think that they are not representative of reality. I have no such illusion about the COST side of the bill, and I have looked at it.

    As far as the "Death Panels", that came from Sarah Palin, who said it was an inevitable conclusion when there are legislative restrictions to spending and government controls on care, but it is not part of the Republican's issues with the bill.

    BUT, when put in context of statements made by Obama's Medical advisor (brother of then Chief of Staff as well) it is certainly NOT out of the question.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html


    Which of course help's explain why Sarah, a mother with a Down's syndrome child might have concerns about those kind of views:

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

    As for the Republicans, they just issued their analysis of the Health care bill and why they think jobs are lost and the CBO numbers are wrong.

    http://speaker.gov/502938458972387456236/reports.htm

    You know, part of the reasoned debate.

    Arthur
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Sure, after a public disinformation campaign full of lies and equating the president to a marxist revolutionary who wants to kill your grandmother.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    This thread was originally about the 2nd Amendement solution as promulgated by Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle just a few months earlier.

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/sharron-angles-solution-broken-congress-arm

    ""If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are going to start looking for second amendment remedies..." - Sharon Angle, Tea Party/Republican candidate for Senate

    And she went on to say. ""The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

    Before this thread was hijacked by conservative mods and the title changed, it was about the demonstrated and documented right wing advocacy of violence to further their political ambitions (e.g. Sharon Angle).

    This one case in Tucson matters little in the overall scheme of things. It is just one more case of political violence. And it was political violence regardless of the gunmans intentions. He shot and killed people at a political event. That is political violence.

    I find it hard to believe that this gunman was so issolated from society that he did not know what was going on in society around him...that he did not watch or listen to media or that he did not associate with other people. But as I said, even if you totally ignore this event. There are some very scary things happening on the right wing of the American body politic. I have never before heard a main stream candidate push the 2nd Amendment solution.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Just exactly what assumptions did the CBO use that are troublesome to you?
    How can you believe anyone who promulgated Death Panels as did the right wing machine (Tea Partiers/Republicans). It was more than just Palin running around lying to everyone about the mythical Death Panels can concentration camps.

    Today healthcare is rationed based on money. And a lot of people are being denied care. And too boot, the new healthare law has no provisions for rationing healthcare. It does however set a floor for minimum coverages. Your reference is misleading and deceptive.

    Well a reasoned debate would include facts and reason, something the Republican justification is sorely missing. There was nothing of substance in that entire lengthy document. And it's references did not support the claims it made. It was an exercise in politics.

    Below is a reasoned response.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011...il92&utm_medium=image&utm_campaign=healthcare
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Well if this thread was about the second amendment and not about blaming the Tea Party for the shooting then why these posts? You are asserting that there is a connection between the shooting and the RW, something that is entirely unwarranted and unproven. You start with

    1) Joe: Remember the Tea Party candidate for Senate in Nevada who advocated the second Amendment solution in lieu of the ballot box? Now we see it in action.

    You claim the shooting is an outcome of said resolution. And then there's this,

    2) Joe post #87: his is not just one statement or even a series statements by Tea Partiers that have brought us this state.

    One can only infer that you believe that it is Tea Party rhetoric that caused the shooting or you wouldn't have called the thread 'Arizona shooting Spree' you would have called it 'Right Wing Rhetoric Inspires Violence' and not mention the arizona shooting

    3) Joe post#123: He did not attack a mall. He did not attack a baseball game. He attacked a Demorcat targeted by Sarah Palin. There is no excuse for using violent imagery in politics.

    Here you imply that he attacked a Democrat because of Palin's imagery.

    4) Joe post#211: From what is known, he certianly held Tea Party positions. He was anti-government.

    You claim Loughner held tea party positions which is a groundless assessment since many people representing many different political affiliations are anti-government. You assume you understood his motivations before any of the facts came in.

    5) Joe post# 213: 20 people get shot and you say,"What fuckin problem exists joe". I think that says it all.

    You are claiming that 20 people got shot because of Republicans.

    6) Joe post#252: Palin's targeting of not only districts but individuals. That gun site (which Palin's people formerly called a gun site but are now calling a surveyor scope) was on top of an individuals name.And you ignore the fact that this man shared the same political issues with the Tea Party. You ignore the fact that the sheriff himself made statements indicating that this was the result of over heated political rhetoric. The sheriff said the individual was unstable and motivated by the political rhetoric on TV and radio. So yeah ignore 99.999 percent of the evidence and pretend like it does not exist and focus on the least bit of evidence possible.

    You use Palin's site as the cause of Loughner's target (which we know is not the case). And again you claim that the shooter held tea party beliefs and then go on to use the sheriff as proof that the shooting was motivated by political rhetoric, something that is yet unproven. You took his early supposition and ran with it.

    7) Joe post#287: the sheriff knows more than you and I and he is attributing this to disturbed man who was influenced by right wing politics. And that is corroborated by other known evidence.

    We know this to have been a load of bullocks. The sheriff didn't wait for an investigation before he pinned his own reasoning on the shooter.

    8) Joe post# 403:…this guy was spewing right wing tag lines…The right wing is very anxious to paint this guy as a nut. And as for the sheriff, he was giving his professional opinion based on his knowlege of the case...which is a hell of a lot more than you and I know. And because of his comments he has become the target of right wing extremists like limbaugh and Fox News. Trying to discredit a long serving law enforcement officer is a hell of a lot easier than admiting cuplabilty and loosing your lunch ticket.

    You claim the Right is culpable and base it on the opinion, not an investigative fact based reality, but on the personal opinion of the sheriff. You cannot deny that you assumed from the beginning that this was a 'right wing nut' when there was no evidence of him being of any particular political persuasion. You also fail to mention that there are those on the left who are also anti-government. There are many people who are not tea party members who oppose bailouts, who think the constitution has been trampled upon (patriot act & growing police state) and that the dollar should be based on gold. What you are doing is isolating the Right and saying they are the only ones, the only people who hold these beliefs and that's completely wrong. So you will have to admit that as far as you know anything could have influenced this guy including the scifi channel. Like I said if you wanted to simply talk about the aggressive political climate then you would have started a thread discussing that and not attempt to pin the shooting on that climate in order to have the discussion. So it is you and others here who needed a violent act in order to piggyback the issue into a discussion. One is lead to believe you either think all violence is due to the Republicans or that you believe without a shred of evidence that this shooting was an outcome of political discourse. Either way the supposition is wrong.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Oh please. No adult with a working brain thinks the current health care "debate" is "reasoned" or anything like that. This isn't about health care policy, finances, etc. at all. That debate already happened, Congress already crafted compromise legislation, voted to pass it, and the President signed it into law. Anyone invested in pretending to relegislate this stuff now is unreasonable, almost by definition.

    This "debate" is about nothing more than political maneuvering by the GOP to cultivate votes from reactionary elements like the Teabaggers. What is going to be decided, in policy terms, already has been. This is all just so much posturing and circus for the fool demographic (hence all the disengenous attempts to exclude the costs of repealling health care reform from CBO projections, etc.).
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Excuse me for stepping in, but it seems you have missed the point. The rhetoric on the right has led directly to other incidents, some of which I have posted. The left doesn't talk like this.
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    BS

    A congress, bloated with DEMOCRATS, rammed this unpopular legislation down the country's throat.

    Or did you happen to forget why the people tossed so many of their butts out in the last election?

    The democrats took advantage of their brief electoral majority to pass legislation that was clearly NOT what the majority of the people wanted and the ONLY reason it is still law is because the president and only 1/3 of the senators had to stand for re-election in the last election.

    Sheesh.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Rammed? That's another talking point. It took at least a year, and it was an aspect of the campaign.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829

    Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

    Right

    Arthur
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    BS, besides the economy, probably the biggest reason so many Democrats got tossed out last year was because of health care.

    Just look at the anger at those town meetings.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Exactly! And I have repeatedly posted those other incidents as well, only to be ignored by those on the so called conservative end of the political spectrum.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    BLOATED is not a biased term?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why is it poor Republicans are always gettting things rammed down their throats? I'd say they had better change their ways if they are always getting things rammed down their throats as they claim.

    Additionally, I think you need to clarify "unpopular". What was unpopular was the misrepresentations about the bill that Republicans/Tea Partiers/heatlhcare industry sold to the American people. It has always been clear that when people are polled about the individual aspects of the law, they like it. And as they learn the truth about the law, it is becoming increasingly popular. And many did not like the process, but that is how laws are created in Washington. The process by which the heatlhcare reform law was passed was pretty mild by previous standards (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug). When this healthcare law passed there were no late night/early morning sessions nor did the sponsors and staffers go to work for the healthcare industry after the bill was passed as Republicans did when they passed the Medicare Prescription Drug bill.

    People will learn that the law is not a job killer. They will learn that the law contains no death panels. They will learn that the law will save the country money. And when they learn those things, Republicans/Tea Partiers will suffer the consequences and their credibility will be damaged.
    Let's be clear here. Republicans only took control of the House. They did not take control of the Senate. And it is typical in off year elections for the majority party to suffer seat losses.

    There is no evidence the loss of the House was in any way the result of the passage of the healthcare reform law.

    You have extra sensory perception? How do you know this? How do you know that the reason Republicans took control of the House was because of the high unemployment number rather that the healthcare law?

    Let me remind you that in 4 recent polls President Obama is surging in popularity, well over 50 percent job approval. And President Obama was a key driver for the healthcare reform law. So that seems at odds with your claim (ESP).
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    A body of democratically elected legislators enjoys a certain mandate, and with it the prerogative to enact legislation through institutional means, without any need to ram anything down anyone's throat. We had an open, vigorous, lengthy public debate. The politicians counted their support, calculated their prospects, and acted accordingly. That is representative democracy in action, not the employment of force. Indeed, one of the primary reasons for favoring representative democracy over direct democracy is exactly that it allows legislators some space to enact laws that may not be particularly popular at that particular moment in time.

    Not that you have established that the health care reform act was/is actually "unpopular" in the relevant sense (i.e., outside of GOP fantasy-land), note.

    Because the economy was in the shitter. That's what happens to encumbents when the economy is in the shitter. The premise that the midterms were some kind of national referendum on health care reform, and that the result was some kind of clear repudiation of such, is simply another unsubstantiated GOP talking point.

    And the implication that any reasonable adult is going to go along with this sort of GOP framing - wherein such is taken as given - is offensively asinine (even as it is laughably overconfident).

    Again, what you are describing is the normal, prescribed operation of representative democracy. If you have some actual evidence that some clear majority of voters wants healthcare reform repealled, please present such now or shut up. If you're honest about it, you'll find that a considerable chunk of the voters who are dissatisfied with the law as it stands base that position on the law being too much of a compromise with Republican positions - they want to change it to make it even "worse," from your perspective. There is no honest way to assert that anything approaching a majority of voters endorse the "repeal and replace" platform the Teabaggers are pushing. And so we see the profusion of dishonest claims of such.

    Moreover, in the real world, what a democracy does is produce legislation that nobody particularly likes as such. This is because it consists of a series of compromises, and so acts to attempt to distribute dissatisfaction as evenly (in the politically-relevant sense) as possible. A good law is one that makes everyone equally unhappy. If it were the case that we need only enact laws that are clearly supported as such by a majority of voters, we'd have no need of representatives at all. In the real world, that would mean never passing much of anything of any import. Or, nothing good anyway - as a CA resident I'm pointedly reminded of the public's capacity to favor "free money for everyone" and "fuck those dirty minorities" every time we have a referendum.

    This whole implied standard where the government is some kind of oppressive force any time it enacts legislation that isn't exactly what you want is childish and dangerous. It disrespects actual oppression, and debases what should be a peaceful, adult civic dialogue in favor of violent rejectionism. You are a bad person for selling your integrity into the service of such. And a sucker to boot, considering that the organizers and beneficiaries of such a program hold you in at least as much contempt as I do.
     

Share This Page