Why Conservatives are Happy and Leftists Are Angry

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

No, because I continually hope for better from you only to be disappointed when you consistently provide less.

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

Hardly - reading comprehension skills, that is. It wasn't as clearly stated as you believe. The point being made that you so conveniently and deceptively ignored was that anyone, by your definition, is limited to those so-called "statists" you're so fond of denigrating. Do you know what the opposite of statism is? Look it up. Google it. Is the opposite of statist what you'd like regressives to be labeled as from now on? The intent of my assertion was that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong in your mind.

PrintSmith wrote: 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?

On its face, your posit is correct - no argument from me there as far as every single empire falling at some point in history. Your question is rhetorical and condescending as far as I'm concerned with regard to what it teaches me. You can try to lecture as much as you want, but, as has been pointed out in other threads, this isn't high school, nor is it World History 101. Your stated opinion does not need a link. Nor does mine. My opinion with regard to your last sentence/question in this paragraph is that, once again, your condescension comes through loud and clear.

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

Apples and oranges, and you know it. Truth and honesty in debate go hand in hand with credibility - in my opinion. When you cite statistics, it is different than stating an opinion, and you know that, too.

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

The deception lies not in the asking for a link, but in you refusing to provide a direct link to your source if that is, in fact, where you got your data from. It's too easy to get information through a third party website and use the twist those sites put on things to your own purposes - something you've accused me of doing. I believe you're hiding something. That's my stated opinion.

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

No, I don't fail to do this. The fact is, progressives, or "statists" as you label them, have just as much of a right to use a later date for comparison on minimum wages as you do. That's my stated opinion. You, obviously, disagree. That is your stated opinion. Both opinions have some validity. Both have some things that can be questioned. That also is my stated opinion.

PrintSmith wrote: 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 . . .

You stand steadfast in your ideology that the entire history of the minimum wage needs to be included. Why is that? Who made that "rule"? You? The reality is the minimum wage was instituted in an era arguably completely dissimilar to the needs of the populace today. Look it up. There are some who opine they want to take our country back. My question is back to what? If you look at the corporate income tax in those decades you mention, it was a lot higher than it is today. Look it up. It's easily Googled. Wages of middle income families were also on the upswing. Not so today. Again, look it up.

My final point is that not everything is quite as black and white as you apparently would have us believe. That's an opinion of mine. Those grey areas in between the black and white are what I try to bring forth. That you choose to remain firmly lodged in your opposition to anything progressive in nature is certainly your choice. It simply isn't mine.

Its not really that hard to statistically analyze min wage or anything else over time with log graphs and fitted trend lines to determine slopes and growth rates. Excel charts do it quite nicely.

The typical year-year data supplied by bloggers are cherry picked to support their pre-determined conclusions, no doubt

Just phase in a gradual adjustment for inflation to the min wage and be done with all this political BS already. Duh. LOL

Agreed.

ZHawke wrote: Apples and oranges, and you know it. Truth and honesty in debate go hand in hand with credibility - in my opinion. When you cite statistics, it is different than stating an opinion, and you know that, too.

And credibility in a debate presumes that a certain amount of basic research regarding the facts has occurred ahead of time. Had you bothered to become informed prior to attempting to engage in the debate you would be well aware of the basic facts surrounding it. Come prepared Z, I'll not do your basic homework for you.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Apples and oranges, and you know it. Truth and honesty in debate go hand in hand with credibility - in my opinion. When you cite statistics, it is different than stating an opinion, and you know that, too.

And credibility in a debate presumes that a certain amount of basic research regarding the facts has occurred ahead of time. Had you bothered to become informed prior to attempting to engage in the debate you would be well aware of the basic facts surrounding it. Come prepared Z, I'll not do your basic homework for you.

Not asking you to do my "basic homework". Even basic homework requires that data sources used provide citations as to where those data sources come from. So, when you say you've done your "homework" beforehand, I'm not "required" to accept your results just because you say they are factual. It is incumbent upon you, the provider of the data, to also provide verifiable proof of its veracity.

This discussion has descended into the inane. The ball is now in your court. Are you going to insist on having the last word?

You're missing the point here Z. Had you done your basic homework ahead of time you would already be familiar, yourself, with the numbers I used. Being familiar with them, you wouldn't need links to find them, you would recognize those figures; you, yourself, would have seen them before. You wouldn't be wondering where they came from at that point, they would be familiar to you. That they are not tells me, and everyone else, how much you have actually looked into the issue prior to forming an opinion on it.

PrintSmith wrote: You're missing the point here Z. Had you done your basic homework ahead of time you would already be familiar, yourself, with the numbers I used. Being familiar with them, you wouldn't need links to find them, you would recognize those figures; you, yourself, would have seen them before. You wouldn't be wondering where they came from at that point, they would be familiar to you. That they are not tells me, and everyone else, how much you have actually looked into the issue prior to forming an opinion on it.

No, PrintSmith - you are the one totally missing the point. My opinion, my right to say so.

Last word is becoming an oxymoron, isn't it.

Absolutely Z, you have an absolute right to form any opinion without bothering to become informed ahead of time. You'll get no disagreement from me there. It's par for the course for far too many in the Union for my liking.

LOL wrote: Just phase in a gradual adjustment for inflation to the min wage and be done with all this political BS already. Duh. LOL

And when should that COLA begin? With the 1938 value which gives us a minimum wage of something approaching a $4.25/hr figure, the 1968 value which puts it north of $11/hr or the last time it was raised, which would bring us in the neighborhood of $8/hr?

Or should we submit to a renegotiation of minimum wage and add that COLA provision to this value?

Point of the post is to say that you will never be rid of the political BS surrounding minimum wage because the whole concept of having one is political to begin with. Even if there were a COLA provision, the argument then becomes that an increase is necessary in spite of the COLA for other political reasons, mostly having to do with the buying of votes . . .

I thought the point of a site like this was to discuss, not tell someone to go do their own research with the implication being to stop talking about the topic at hand? Hashing things out is what makes it cool. If you disagree with a fact or statistic, say why, or bring your own to prove it.

Oh, and don't take it all personal - who cares what someone else thinks of you, or what they say about your opinion? As a dear friend says, Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

And it's not always pretty or smelling like roses, what comes outta there either. But it's an important function in life. Accept it and move on, or dwell and stress. Your choice.

Now, as to the title. I think we're all angry. And pissed off. And tired of the bullsh** coming out of DC. Show me a group of happy people and I'll buy them another beer, because they're ether drunk and looking for another, or they're Buddhist monks who figured out what the rest of us can't - how to let it go. In which case I get the beer I just bought so I'm happier. so there.