7 lies (or delusions) of GOP ideologies in 2'47"

[GenSeneca]

Both sides offer their point of views, and the other side calls it "propaganda."

How do you evaluate the truth of any given statement, or do you even bother? Is it as simple as 'If a lefty said it, it's true, and if a righty said it, it's false'? Because that seems to be your measure... You have a record of dismissing as "opinion" any facts that do not support, or directly contradict, what it is that you believe is "true".

So what is the process by which you determine the truth of any given statement?

 

[Openmind]

How do you evaluate the truth of any given statement, or do you even bother? Is it as simple as 'If a lefty said it, it's true, and if a righty said it, it's false'? Because that seems to be your measure... You have a record of dismissing as "opinion" any facts that do not support, or directly contradict, what it is that you believe is "true".

So what is the process by which you determine the truth of any given statement?

Well, how do YOU evalutate the truth? It seems to me that in this forum in particular, ANYTHING the Left states, even with supportive evidence, is taken as a lie or as a big joke, and the few (very few. . .I count 2 at this time) "leftist" who remain in this forum are being mercilessly ridiculed for having their OWN sources and believing in factual information that differs from the Righ wing sources!

And then, even the best of you (which I count 3 total), insist in taking a pompous, "know it all," "Leftist need to be either inhilated or converted" type attitude. There is a general arrogance in the most intelligent among you that forces you to ignore or ridicule ANY possibility that you may be mistaken, even in minute part of the issues debated.

And. . .let's not even talk about the "rest" of the Righ wing posters here. . .they can't debate or discuss without insulting and belittleling. . .again, arrogance, but this time EXTREMELY misguided!

Please do not tell me that YOUR sources and YOUR facts are the ONLY correct way to look at things, and the rest is false and ridiculous. . .because EVEN among the most famous economists, there IS NO agreement!

So. . .half of those famous, respected economists are "stupid" because they don't agree with the other half?

I can see, and I can admit that there may be some "truth" and "real facts" in BOTH groups. . . But apparently, in spite of your obvious intelligence. . .YOU CAN"T!

Sorry, but being so stuck into ONE mind set . . . is not the best proof of your true intellect! And yet, I do respect YOUR, and Dr. WHO, and BOB's intelligence and . . .your frequent "attempts" at fairness.

I have even agreed with you on a couple of issues, which seem to have been embarrassing for you. . .because obviously, YOU wouldn't want to be seen in agreement with a "Leftist," even if it is YOUR point of view I agreed with!

Sorry guys. . .I may be female, I may be old, I may be a "foreigner," and I my way of expressing myself may be "awkward" at times because English is not my first language, because I only spoke (and heard) my first word of English after the age of 21. . .but I am NOT stupid, and I am NOT easily intimidated, because I HAVE discussed with the best of them. I have (which was a big suprise to me at the beginning) risen to the top of academic achievements even in a language that wasn't my own.

It took me 40 years to reach self-confidence and self-esteem. I KNOW who I am, I know that I am NOT infaillible, and that I WANT to keep an open mind. . .but not in front of people who are not smart or open enough to take the same attitude of "maybe I don't know everything," "maybe I could take, just for a moment, another stand, just to see what an issue looks like when observed from another stand point, from another view."

I am truly interested in LEARNING, even at 61. I am truly looking for a solution that would bring the world together (in small ways, of course. . .I do not plan on being a Sister Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr.), I am totally open to compromise of ideas, because I believe there is a LOT more in 100 smart people's heads, especially smart people who are willing to see the WHOLE picture, rather than sticking to "a party line," than in ONE head, no matter how brilliant that one head may be (and. . .no, I am not talking about myself...). But I am NOT willing to be patronize by people who seem incapable of even CONSIDERING that someone may have the right information, just because that information is not "within the paradigme of the party line!"

And I CERTAINLY will not let the most uneducated and sadistic people among your "party group" intimidate me in being another sheep in your coral, or in living this site with my tail between my legs because of the insults and the belittlement.

So. . face it. You're stuck with me, you're stuck with my expressing my opinions, and backing my opinions with information that comes from sources that I trust, and that I find reliable.

And. . . you can continue to do the same. . .or you can put me on ignore, which I have done with a couple of your most "polite and friendly" minds!

 

[Gipper]

Well, how do YOU evalutate the truth? It seems to me that in this forum in particular, ANYTHING the Left states, even with supportive evidence, is taken as a lie or as a big joke, and the few (very few. . .I count 2 at this time) "leftist" who remain in this forum are being mercilessly ridiculed for having their OWN sources and believing in factual information that differs from the Righ wing sources!

And then, even the best of you (which I count 3 total), insist in taking a pompous, "know it all," "Leftist need to be either inhilated or converted" type attitude. There is a general arrogance in the most intelligent among you that forces you to ignore or ridicule ANY possibility that you may be mistaken, even in minute part of the issues debated.

And. . .let's not even talk about the "rest" of the Righ wing posters here. . .they can't debate or discuss without insulting and belittleling. . .again, arrogance, but this time EXTREMELY misguided!

Please do not tell me that YOUR sources and YOUR facts are the ONLY correct way to look at things, and the rest is false and ridiculous. . .because EVEN among the most famous economists, there IS NO agreement!

So. . .half of those famous, respected economists are "stupid" because they don't agree with the other half?

I can see, and I can admit that there may be some "truth" and "real facts" in BOTH groups. . . But apparently, in spite of your obvious intelligence. . .YOU CAN"T!

Sorry, but being so stuck into ONE mind set . . . is not the best proof of your true intellect! And yet, I do respect YOUR, and Dr. WHO, and BOB's intelligence and . . .your frequent "attempts" at fairness.

I have even agreed with you on a couple of issues, which seem to have been embarrassing for you. . .because obviously, YOU wouldn't want to be seen in agreement with a "Leftist," even if it is YOUR point of view I agreed with!

Sorry guys. . .I may be female, I may be old, I may be a "foreigner," and I my way of expressing myself may be "awkward" at times because English is not my first language, because I only spoke (and heard) my first word of English after the age of 21. . .but I am NOT stupid, and I am NOT easily intimidated, because I HAVE discussed with the best of them. I have (which was a big suprise to me at the beginning) risen to the top of academic achievements even in a language that wasn't my own.

It took me 40 years to reach self-confidence and self-esteem. I KNOW who I am, I know that I am NOT infaillible, and that I WANT to keep an open mind. . .but not in front of people who are not smart or open enough to take the same attitude of "maybe I don't know everything," "maybe I could take, just for a moment, another stand, just to see what an issue looks like when observed from another stand point, from another view."

I am truly interested in LEARNING, even at 61. I am truly looking for a solution that would bring the world together (in small ways, of course. . .I do not plan on being a Sister Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr.), I am totally open to compromise of ideas, because I believe there is a LOT more in 100 smart people's heads, especially smart people who are willing to see the WHOLE picture, rather than sticking to "a party line," than in ONE head, no matter how brilliant that one head may be (and. . .no, I am not talking about myself...). But I am NOT willing to be patronize by people who seem incapable of even CONSIDERING that someone may have the right information, just because that information is not "within the paradigme of the party line!"

And I CERTAINLY will not let the most uneducated and sadistic people among your "party group" intimidate me in being another sheep in your coral, or in living this site with my tail between my legs because of the insults and the belittlement.

So. . face it. You're stuck with me, you're stuck with my expressing my opinions, and backing my opinions with information that comes from sources that I trust, and that I find reliable.

And. . . you can continue to do the same. . .or you can put me on ignore, which I have done with a couple of your most "polite and friendly" minds!

Almost read that. Almost!!!

Could you please refute the points made by Big Rob? That is how one debates.

 

[BigRob]

You mean. . . versus Republican propaganda?

That's fair enough!

Both sides offer their point of views, and the other side calls it "propaganda."

Okay!

The truth is something...so what is it? You claim this video is "fact", and yet deny (or ignore) that there is no causal link in almost all of his arguments and his conclusions.

Do you truly believe that the debate is as simple as saying "the tax rate was X and the economy did X, therefore tax rates were the cause of what the economy did"? That might fly in middle school, but in the real world, you need to draw an actual link showing a connection. None of this was done.

 

[dogtowner]

So. . face it. You're stuck with me, you're stuck with my expressing my opinions, and backing my opinions with information that comes from sources that I trust, and that I find reliable.

facts be damned

And. . . you can continue to do the same. . .or you can put me on ignore, which I have done with a couple of your most "polite and friendly" minds!

You're such fun

 

[Openmind]

The truth is something...so what is it? You claim this video is "fact", and yet deny (or ignore) that there is no causal link in almost all of his arguments and his conclusions.

Do you truly believe that the debate is as simple as saying "the tax rate was X and the economy did X, therefore tax rates were the cause of what the economy did"? That might fly in middle school, but in the real world, you need to draw an actual link showing a connection. None of this was done.

Did I say this video was "fact?" I believe I said this economist demonstrated his view of economy based on his side of economic principles. . .just as the "right wing," trinkle down, supply side economists express what they think is right.

NEITHER is fact, but both are still being argued by people a lot smarter than any of us here. . .choosing one's side of the argument doesn't make it "fact," it means that there is another side that is just as valid!

You call one side "propaganda," and the other side "facts!"

I call both sides THEORIES, unproven theories!

 

[BigRob]

Did I say this video was "fact?"

From Post#1

Openmind: I know. . .most of you will call this "liberal lies!" So, what's new? But the facts are there:

Give that you followed this statement with the video, what else am I to assume other than you believe the video to be fact?

I believe I said this economist demonstrated his view of economy based on his side of economic principles. . .just as the "right wing," trinkle down, supply side economists express what they think is right.

No, what you said was exactly as I quoted above...

That aside, he didn't actually demonstrate anything..he made the argument that tax cuts don't trickle down to everyone...however ignored in his "analysis" anything outside of "tax rates = X, median income = X, therefore tax rates at X% correlate to median incomes at X". You can argue that I suppose, but it doesn't stand up to even basic questioning.

Where are the hard numbers? How does he account for outside influences...how does he even establish a correlation? He doesn't.

NEITHER is fact, but both are still being argued by people a lot smarter than any of us here. . .choosing one's side of the argument doesn't make it "fact," it means that there is another side that is just as valid!

There are good arguments on both sides of the debate...the problem is that many people making those arguments are not actually making the good arguments on both sides of the debate...

There can be a good argument for both sides of a debate, and someone debating the issue can not make those arguments. The presence of a good argument on both sides does not mean his argument is valid, or makes any sense...because it doesn't. He needs to establish an actual correlation, and causation.

You call one side "propaganda," and the other side "facts!"

The manner in which he is shaping his arguments is mere propaganda...there is no getting around that. There are valid arguments that can better assert some of the points he tries to make...he simply does not make them, and links X as the cause of Y without establishing any basis for why this is so.

I call both sides THEORIES, unproven theories!

Shouldn't we go with the one that has the most data backing it then? Where is the data to show that the "theory" you advocate for is the best course of action?

 

[Openmind]

From Post#1

Openmind: I know. . .most of you will call this "liberal lies!" So, what's new? But the facts are there:

Give that you followed this statement with the video, what else am I to assume other than you believe the video to be fact?



No, what you said was exactly as I quoted above...

That aside, he didn't actually demonstrate anything..he made the argument that tax cuts don't trickle down to everyone...however ignored in his "analysis" anything outside of "tax rates = X, median income = X, therefore tax rates at X% correlate to median incomes at X". You can argue that I suppose, but it doesn't stand up to even basic questioning.

Where are the hard numbers? How does he account for outside influences...how does he even establish a correlation? He doesn't.



There are good arguments on both sides of the debate...the problem is that many people making those arguments are not actually making the good arguments on both sides of the debate...

There can be a good argument for both sides of a debate, and someone debating the issue can not make those arguments. The presence of a good argument on both sides does not mean his argument is valid, or makes any sense...because it doesn't. He needs to establish an actual correlation, and causation.



The manner in which he is shaping his arguments is mere propaganda...there is no getting around that. There are valid arguments that can better assert some of the points he tries to make...he simply does not make them, and links X as the cause of Y without establishing any basis for why this is so.



Shouldn't we go with the one that has the most data backing it then? Where is the data to show that the "theory" you advocate for is the best course of action?

This was a 2'47" expose.

If you want details and prove (or disprove) anything he says . . .I'm sure you realize it would take longer than 2 minutes to do it.

Look at it this way: Fox News and the Right have all those "canned" comments that are taken for granted (almost as gospel) by most conservatives.

This guy went a little farther than "canned comments," but didn't take the time to explain in details the bases of his theories.

I posted this to demonstrate that, for every canned comments spewed by the Right, there are other ways, and other theories that contradict the canned propaganda.

Which is right? . . ..I am certain that you do not believe that either side of economics theory could be "proven" in either a "canned comment" or in a 2 minute expose.

Basically, this is a mirror image of what the right does all the time: give "statements" by "biased sources" and try to tell everyone else that, anything else is stupid or a lie.

When, really, the truth probably lies someplace in the middle, but can be researched more deeply by looking at DIFFERENT sources, and by accepting that different economics theories exist!

 

[Openmind]

The truth is something...so what is it? You claim this video is "fact", and yet deny (or ignore) that there is no causal link in almost all of his arguments and his conclusions.

Do you truly believe that the debate is as simple as saying "the tax rate was X and the economy did X, therefore tax rates were the cause of what the economy did"? That might fly in middle school, but in the real world, you need to draw an actual link showing a connection. None of this was done.

Thank you so much for showing this illiterate little old woman your wisdom and knowledge!

Patronizing again?

Obviously no one is trying to PROVE anything through a 2' 47" video! This is the equivalent (only better and based on more fundamental principles) than the canned propaganda of the Right.

This is why I presented it. . .to show all of you how easy it is to "state facts" in a "canned" version of any explanation.

You can call it Left wing propaganda, but you better realize that it is no worse than the Righ wing progaganda that you guys are taking for gospel!

 

[dogtowner]

Thank you so much for showing this illiterate little old woman your wisdom and knowledge!

Patronizing again?

Obviously no one is trying to PROVE anything through a 2' 47" video! This is the equivalent (only better and based on more fundamental principles) than the canned propaganda of the Right.

This is why I presented it. . .to show all of you how easy it is to "state facts" in a "canned" version of any explanation.

You can call it Left wing propaganda, but you better realize that it is no worse than the Righ wing progaganda that you guys are taking for gospel!

Inventing insults in addition to trying to move goalposts now ?

 

[Dr.Who]

You mean. . . versus Republican propaganda?

That's fair enough!

Both sides offer their point of views, and the other side calls it "propaganda."

Okay!

Both sides offer propaganda which is called progaganda and not always recognized as such by those that believe it.

But both sides also offer factual and good information and we here can be smart enough to rise above being pawns of the leaders.

With an emphasis on outing falsehood, being accurate, honest, willing to change our minds, accepting what is good from anyone we can create a true dialectic. But the same old political sniping will not result in a dialiectic.

 

[Dr.Who]

So what is the process by which you determine the truth of any given statement?

I agree wholeheartedly that the process needs to be intentionally known and used.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, how do YOU evalutate the truth? It seems to me that in this forum in particular, ANYTHING the Left states, even with supportive evidence, is taken as a lie or as a big joke, and the few (very few. . .I count 2 at this time) "leftist" who remain in this forum are being mercilessly ridiculed for having their OWN sources and believing in factual information that differs from the Righ wing sources!

And then, even the best of you (which I count 3 total), insist in taking a pompous, "know it all," "Leftist need to be either inhilated or converted" type attitude. There is a general arrogance in the most intelligent among you that forces you to ignore or ridicule ANY possibility that you may be mistaken, even in minute part of the issues debated.

And. . .let's not even talk about the "rest" of the Righ wing posters here. . .they can't debate or discuss without insulting and belittleling. . .again, arrogance, but this time EXTREMELY misguided!

Please do not tell me that YOUR sources and YOUR facts are the ONLY correct way to look at things, and the rest is false and ridiculous. . .because EVEN among the most famous economists, there IS NO agreement!

So. . .half of those famous, respected economists are "stupid" because they don't agree with the other half?

I can see, and I can admit that there may be some "truth" and "real facts" in BOTH groups. . . But apparently, in spite of your obvious intelligence. . .YOU CAN"T!

Sorry, but being so stuck into ONE mind set . . . is not the best proof of your true intellect! And yet, I do respect YOUR, and Dr. WHO, and BOB's intelligence and . . .your frequent "attempts" at fairness.

I have even agreed with you on a couple of issues, which seem to have been embarrassing for you. . .because obviously, YOU wouldn't want to be seen in agreement with a "Leftist," even if it is YOUR point of view I agreed with!

Sorry guys. . .I may be female, I may be old, I may be a "foreigner," and I my way of expressing myself may be "awkward" at times because English is not my first language, because I only spoke (and heard) my first word of English after the age of 21. . .but I am NOT stupid, and I am NOT easily intimidated, because I HAVE discussed with the best of them. I have (which was a big suprise to me at the beginning) risen to the top of academic achievements even in a language that wasn't my own.

It took me 40 years to reach self-confidence and self-esteem. I KNOW who I am, I know that I am NOT infaillible, and that I WANT to keep an open mind. . .but not in front of people who are not smart or open enough to take the same attitude of "maybe I don't know everything," "maybe I could take, just for a moment, another stand, just to see what an issue looks like when observed from another stand point, from another view."

I am truly interested in LEARNING, even at 61. I am truly looking for a solution that would bring the world together (in small ways, of course. . .I do not plan on being a Sister Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr.), I am totally open to compromise of ideas, because I believe there is a LOT more in 100 smart people's heads, especially smart people who are willing to see the WHOLE picture, rather than sticking to "a party line," than in ONE head, no matter how brilliant that one head may be (and. . .no, I am not talking about myself...). But I am NOT willing to be patronize by people who seem incapable of even CONSIDERING that someone may have the right information, just because that information is not "within the paradigme of the party line!"

And I CERTAINLY will not let the most uneducated and sadistic people among your "party group" intimidate me in being another sheep in your coral, or in living this site with my tail between my legs because of the insults and the belittlement.

So. . face it. You're stuck with me, you're stuck with my expressing my opinions, and backing my opinions with information that comes from sources that I trust, and that I find reliable.

And. . . you can continue to do the same. . .or you can put me on ignore, which I have done with a couple of your most "polite and friendly" minds!

There is truth in what you say. But it is not as much the fault of others as you think and you are not as innocent as you think. There is room for everyone to grow.

You for example think of yourself as a moderate.Yet you are one of the most far left people that we have had on this site for a long time. (and yes the site goes through changes when sometimes one side dominates but it is not always the same side). Being so far to the left there are times when you have trouble seeing that the facts you present are gross distortions and sometimes you have trouble seeing that the distortions you see from others are actually reasoned ideas. Not always - but sometimes. It happens to us all and at this time you have some room for growth as well.

Am I attacking you? Not really. Did I single you out? Not really. I could and have said similar things to others in the past. I hope that it is edifying rather than insulting. You are not always wrong but IMO everything you say includes some shading of propaganda that would suit you well to be removed. For you own good don't let the powers that be make you who they want you to be. Take truth from those here that disagree with you. But that does require hard work. I give you this advice not because I am better or know better but because I see you as one who has the ability to accept it and grow. That makes you a rare flower in the garden. But beware which gardener you let tend your needs.

 

[Openmind]

I always am looking for growth. . . Can you, and especially the others here say the same?

What you accuse me of doing, is what I see (not so much you and a couple of other posters, but all the others) being done every day by all the "right posters" and with a lot less back up information being provided to support their statements.

You point out to my being an extreme leftist. . . Yet you don't see anyone here as an extreme rightist? If that is not a bias, I don't know what is.

Do you believe that you have reached such a level of perfection and fairness that you ( and especially your little proteges here) have nothing to learn by opening their minds to other's point of view?

do you set yourself, and those who think like you as being the only "gardeners" in this forum, and thus able to determine what is a weed that needs toc be destoyed or at least removed by any means, and what is a flower that must be tended to?

Let me just remind you that a wild flower in a cultured garden is considered a weed, and that its beauty and potential homeopatic qualities will be ignored by the overzealous and narrow minded gardner.

It seems to me that a forum of this kind is NOT supposed to be a French garden, but a broad field in which all weeds are flowers, and all flowers are weeds, just the way God intended the world to be.

 

[Pandora]

I am an extreme right winger in 97% of the issues and I am proud to be that The places I am not extreme right wing I am extreme libertarian