Why Conservatives are Happy and Leftists Are Angry

No worries otisptoadwater! We just want to stick to the topic at hand and have a great discussion here! Thanks!

MountainRoadCrew wrote: No worries otisptoadwater! We just want to stick to the topic at hand and have a great discussion here! Thanks!

My apologies, as well. I let myself get drawn into something I pledged to myself I wouldn't, and for that I'm sorry. When I'm told to stop posting based on someone's assertion I'm wrong, I tend to dig in my heels. My question to everyone who's been following this thread (guess it's more of a statement than a question) is taken from an old Buffalo Springfield song, For What It's Worth: Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

And, with that, I promise to try harder to stay on topic.

ZHawke wrote:

MountainRoadCrew wrote: No worries otisptoadwater! We just want to stick to the topic at hand and have a great discussion here! Thanks!

My apologies, as well. I let myself get drawn into something I pledged to myself I wouldn't, and for that I'm sorry. When I'm told to stop posting based on someone's assertion I'm wrong, I tend to dig in my heels. My question to everyone who's been following this thread (guess it's more of a statement than a question) is taken from an old Buffalo Springfield song, For What It's Worth: Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

And, with that, I promise to try harder to stay on topic.

Good point and a place for everyone to restart from. I'm not a smart man, I'm not a man of many chronicalled accomplishments, but I am a man of pricipals and if I expect others to follow the same principals then I had better make sure that I am compliant with my own expections and policies before I can have any expectation of others to do the same.

I'm not looking so much to be right as I am to have others acknowledge the evidence presented as the truth; Obamacare is an example and it's not too late to repeal that law but there is a lot of damage that has already been done. That's just one issue, there are plenty more.

ZHawke wrote:

MountainRoadCrew wrote: No worries otisptoadwater! We just want to stick to the topic at hand and have a great discussion here! Thanks!

My apologies, as well. I let myself get drawn into something I pledged to myself I wouldn't, and for that I'm sorry. When I'm told to stop posting based on someone's assertion I'm wrong, I tend to dig in my heels. My question to everyone who's been following this thread (guess it's more of a statement than a question) is taken from an old Buffalo Springfield song, For What It's Worth: Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

And, with that, I promise to try harder to stay on topic.

Everybody isn't wrong Z, just those who say that a virtually omnipotent central government is a better solution than what our framers gave us. Those people are always wrong; their policies are always wrong; their world view is always wrong; and they go about their business with the attitude that their desired ends justify any and all means necessary to achieve them, which is also wrong.

Is a minimum wage law a good idea? Some say yes, some say no, but one thing is absolutely clear - if there is to be one it shouldn't emanate from the federal government. If the citizens of New York or Colorado wish to enact one, bully for them. That allows many different theories to be examined and the most beneficial theory to be adopted. Having one theory imposed, and more than that, imposed on what one believes to be true versus what one knows to be true, is a classic top down model that those seeking to employ it regularly espouse opposition to.

Truth of the matter is this. At some level the imposition of a minimum wage law is harmful in an economic sense, that is something that even your "middle of the road" article agrees with. So the question is not whether or not imposition of a minimum wage law is harmful, the question is whether or not the benefits outweigh the harms. If there is no ability to study the effects of having a minimum wage law versus not having one side by side, how can the question of whether the benefits outweigh the harms be decided? It can't because the imposition of a minimum wage law at the federal level makes it impossible to be examined.

BlazerBob wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: It might even be a fair statement to say that the only means such an ideologically driven group has of promoting their agenda is to hide what it is, deceive at any and every opportunity because if that group were to actually try to promote their agenda without lying through their teeth they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in winning any elections . . .

Just heard an add for Hick that said he cut regulations. Some Obamatrons put up lists of Obama's accomplishments that would make the tea party proud.

PrintSmith wrote: Everybody isn't wrong Z, just those who say that a virtually omnipotent central government is a better solution than what our framers gave us. Those people are always wrong; their policies are always wrong; their world view is always wrong; and they go about their business with the attitude that their desired ends justify any and all means necessary to achieve them, which is also wrong.

My focus will be only on this part of your post.

With all due respect, you seem to have a penchant for claiming everyone else is wrong and that only you are right. To me, that is the ultimate in deceptive and disingenuous practices. You've done it here. You've done it on other sites you and I have interacted on. And, you seem to revel in this form of "intimidation". It worked once before on another site. It won't work again.

Virtually everything you've said in the paragraph above could be applied directly back at yourself and those you claim to identify with. Repeating something over and over and over and over doesn't mean it will ever actually become the truth. You may believe it, but that doesn't mean I must buy into it (especially just because you say I must, or even imply I must).

You've called what I've shared previously here and elsewhere "deception" and implied it is intentional. The reality is you've "declined" to provide citations for almost every single posit you've made. You justify your indignation at being asked to do so by saying those citations are easily accessed by anyone who might choose to Google them. That's all fine and good, but, in reality, anyone with an ounce of credibility would provide those data sources right up front as "proof" of their own veracity. In the end it really doesn't matter one way or the other. I just won't assign any value or credibility to anything you have to say unless it is accompanied by proper citations from here on out. Others will do as they will do. They can, and likely will, buy into your "truths" as they see them blending with their own biases, beliefs, and political tendencies.

You told me once that I will "need to do better" here in this Forum. I believe that should apply to everyone who participates here, including yourself.

Reasonable debate is something I'll gladly engage in as long as those sparring in those debates are civil, polite, and willing to provide factual backup for their posits. As far as I'm concerned, your repetitive bloviation is just that - bloviation, at least thus far.

I don't see PS as bloviating as much as just offering an opinion. You may not agree with his opinion, but I do. I believe that the more centralized government control we allow, the samller and less powerful the individual becomes. That does not require sources, only common sense.

Z people are entitled to their opinion without a link to some site. If you don't believe that, please change your screen name to LinkNazi.

Stating an opinion is one thing. Everyone is entitled to that as you've both stated. However, look back through this thread and the Individual Perceptions thread and you should be able to see a pattern. That's what I was trying to address.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Everybody isn't wrong Z, just those who say that a virtually omnipotent central government is a better solution than what our framers gave us. Those people are always wrong; their policies are always wrong; their world view is always wrong; and they go about their business with the attitude that their desired ends justify any and all means necessary to achieve them, which is also wrong.

My focus will be only on this part of your post.

Why? Because it's the only part you deceptions don't apply to?

ZHawke wrote: With all due respect, you seem to have a penchant for claiming everyone else is wrong and that only you are right. To me, that is the ultimate in deceptive and disingenuous practices. You've done it here. You've done it on other sites you and I have interacted on. And, you seem to revel in this form of "intimidation". It worked once before on another site. It won't work again.

Having reading comprehension problems Z? It was very clearly stated that the only ones who were always wrong were ones who believed a virtually omnipotent central government would be superior to the government created by our framers. That's a far cry from your allegation that I have a "penchant for claiming everyone else is wrong" and that only I am right, Unless, that is, you are of the belief that I am the only person out there who is of the mindset that a virtually omnipotent central government is a bad thing; in which case one has to question your tether to reality. The only other explanation is an intentional exaggeration on your part, which speaks to our earlier discussion regarding integrity or the lack thereof.

ZHawke wrote: Virtually everything you've said in the paragraph above could be applied directly back at yourself and those you claim to identify with. Repeating something over and over and over and over doesn't mean it will ever actually become the truth. You may believe it, but that doesn't mean I must buy into it (especially just because you say I must, or even imply I must).

True, a person who believed to the core of their being that a virtually omnipotent central government is far superior to the government our framers gave us could say the same thing about me and everyone else who believes as I do, but they'd still be absolutely wrong in that regard given the history of omnipotent centralized government. They fail with regular, and spectacular, frequency. In point of fact I can't think of a single one that has survived. Rome failed, the British empire fell, Spain is but a shadow of its former self. Why even the great Chinese dynasties that tried to rule vast numbers of people in a vast area of land failed from a central location are but a distant memory. What does this consistent lesson of history teach you Z? It teaches me that it can't be done and that trying to do it again will have the same result. And you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results, don't you? Or do you need a link to that as well?

ZHawke wrote: You've called what I've shared previously here and elsewhere "deception" and implied it is intentional. The reality is you've "declined" to provide citations for almost every single posit you've made. You justify your indignation at being asked to do so by saying those citations are easily accessed by anyone who might choose to Google them. That's all fine and good, but, in reality, anyone with an ounce of credibility would provide those data sources right up front as "proof" of their own veracity. In the end it really doesn't matter one way or the other. I just won't assign any value or credibility to anything you have to say unless it is accompanied by proper citations from here on out. Others will do as they will do. They can, and likely will, buy into your "truths" as they see them blending with their own biases, beliefs, and political tendencies.

j So if I say the sky is blue you won't believe it unless I provide a data source for you? The statement will have no value to you unless and until I provide a "source" to back it up? Ridiculous on its face, isn't it. The data will I provide has value and credibility of its own. Whether you assign value or credibility to it or not will fail to alter this reality. At some point you will come to understand that about truth and honesty in debate.

ZHawke wrote: You told me once that I will "need to do better" here in this Forum. I believe that should apply to everyone who participates here, including yourself.

Reasonable debate is something I'll gladly engage in as long as those sparring in those debates are civil, polite, and willing to provide factual backup for their posits. As far as I'm concerned, your repetitive bloviation is just that - bloviation, at least thus far.

And again, I'll provide no proof that the sky is blue. Anyone who has ever looked at the sky knows it to be true without such a citation. Similarly I need not substantiate something that any informed person debating the minimum wage law knows to be true. If you doubt the veracity of the data due to its source, then confirm it for yourself. It's as simple as looking out the window to confirm that the sky is indeed blue. What the minimum wage law was in 1938, or 1960, or 1968, or what those figures are today adjusted for inflation is a matter of fact, not of opinion. There is absolutely no reason for me to misrepresent those numbers, such a deception would be as easy to discover as the deception employed in manipulating that data in your graph was.

Final point. You fail, up to this point, to display the ability to distinguish between the data and the intentional manipulation of the data. I don't know if this is because it is beyond your ability or because you don't wish to admit that it was done. With regards to your deceptive graph, you will note that I didn't question the numbers, the data, I questioned the manner in which it was organized and manipulated to achieve the desired appearance of the graph because it was here that the deception was employed. This, then, is the difference between your questioning of my numbers and my questioning of your graph.

I also don't question the data that the minimum wage in 1968 was significantly higher, adjusted for inflation, than the minimum wage is today. No, what I question is why the statists choose to base their premise on that year rather than 1950, 1960, 1980, or 1938. When I look for the answer to that question, it quickly becomes obvious why they chose that year instead of any other year in their efforts to deceive. If they compared the average, or even the median, minimum wage adjusted for inflation over the history of the federal minimum wage law their premise falls flat on its face, which is why I counter their argument by presenting the data they sought to exclude. Having all the information is always preferable to having only some of it, isn't it? Unless, that is, your reason for only presenting some of the information is so that you can deceive others and that deception can't be accomplished if you present all of the data . . .