Yeah, but I won't be here

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby jman111 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:20 pm

As a candidate, when the national debt was $19 trillion, Trump promised to erase the entire debt “over a period of eight years.”

Senior administration officials showed Trump charts and graphics in early 2017 that illustrated a “hockey stick” spike in the debt in the coming years. Trump said the data showed the national debt would only become untenable after he left office, the Daily Beast reported.

“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” Trump said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... nt-be-here

Bwis53
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8668
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:39 pm
Location: Bay Creek
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby Bwis53 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:34 pm

So, he's here just for his personal gain...

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby gargantua » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:26 pm

Bwis53 wrote:So, he's here just for his personal gain...

He came for the ego, and stayed for the gain....

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5335
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby DCB » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:49 am

A very unambiguous statement of IGMFY. Not surprising from this guy.

What I find still (somewhat) surprising any of his loyal followers don't get it. Suckers!

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby jman111 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:03 am

DCB wrote:What I find still (somewhat) surprising any of his loyal followers don't get it. Suckers!

They're too busy "winning" to scrutinize.

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby Cadfael » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:33 pm

jman111 wrote:
DCB wrote:What I find still (somewhat) surprising any of his loyal followers don't get it. Suckers!

They're too busy "winning" to scrutinize.

I still find it difficult to understand but haven't we already determined that facts and truth mean absolutely nothing to those guys? It hasn't surprised me for some time.

It is impossible to reason someone out of a conclusion they didn't reason themselves into.

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby penquin » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:15 pm

Cadfael wrote:I still find it difficult to understand but haven't we already determined that facts and truth mean absolutely nothing to those guys?


Not just those guys - you guys as well. (And not just "you guys", but YOU personally, Cadfael. How many different memes have you posted that were later shown to be completely false and untrue?)

Another example is how a lotta folks in the gun thread made it clear that facts don't matter to 'em at all - they still insist that assault weapons fire thousands of bullets every minute, that there is never a need for someone to defend themselves, and that only the military has a constitutional right to bear arms. Those people don't care about facts at all - they want guns banned and in their mind the ends justify the means.

You also got a fella going around claiming that Limbaugh says the banks are denying loans to anyone who owns a gun...tho no record of Rush saying such a thing can be found.

More recently, when confronted with the fact that tear gas was used at the border during the Obama Admin a foron said they don't know if that is true (even tho Google was LITERALLY right there at their fingertips) nor do they care. How much more blatant can one be about wanting to ignore the actual truth?

To top it off...one of the more prolific posters on this forum admitted that he intentionally posts misleading and untrue statements in an attempt to get those with a conservative viewpoint to engage him.

And those are just off the top of my head...the list could go on&on.

It is impossible to reason someone out of a conclusion they didn't reason themselves into.


Exactly. Which is why reasonable people are so frustrated with the extremists on both sides of the aisle.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby jman111 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:27 pm

penquin wrote:Another example is how a lotta folks in the gun thread made it clear that facts don't matter to 'em at all - they still insist that assault weapons fire thousands of bullets every minute, that there is never a need for someone to defend themselves...

(my emphases)
Really? I don't remember either of these claims being made. Got links?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby jman111 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:39 pm

penquin wrote:You also got a fella going around claiming that Limbaugh says the banks are denying loans to anyone who owns a gun...tho no record of Rush saying such a thing can be found.

This?
pjbogart wrote:Limbaugh has been trotting out an absolutely ridiculous talking point: corporate gun control. I'm pretty sure this is officially a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, but essentially Limbaugh claims that major financial institutions are now asking if you're a gun owner so they can refuse to give you a loan or mortgage.

Well, I found this in about 5 seconds:
The objective is to make it financially painful to support the Second Amendment and gun rights groups. Lending institutions and banks are a big part of this. If you need a mortgage, if you go to a participating — and there’s not a list of these things.

I mean, they’re very quiet about this. If you go to a lending institution or a bank, you need money for anything, want to buy a house, want to buy a car, on the application form there will be a section about your relationship with guns and the NRA. And if you support the NRA, if you own guns, they will turn down your request for the loan. It’s just beginning, and it’s at the early stages, as I say. George Soros, not totally him, but he’s here at the foundational efforts of it.

(my emphasis)
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018 ... amendment/

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby penquin » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:55 pm

Ain't gonna dig through the entire gun thread...but do recall either snoqueen or rabble saying they don't care if it's true or not if a gun fires thousands (or maybe "hundreds") of bullets. A study was recently posted in that same thread stating thinking one needs a firearm to defend one self is akin to beleiving people have been abducted by aliens. Also, Henry is constantly making the claim that firearms are not needed for self defense...even when links have been provided showing examples of when the police weren't there to protect people and citizens were left to fend for themselves.

And if you took more than just five seconds to skim over what Limbaugh had said, then you'd see that he isn't talking about that actually happening now but rather were he beleives we're headed.

All that aside, it appears to me that you are in agreement with pjbogart's statement that the left doesn't lie - at least not in this forum they don't. Am I reading you correctly or are you simply taking exception to those particular examples I provided?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby jman111 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:19 pm

No, you are not "reading me correctly". I am taking exception to the specific examples you provided.

I will admit, though, that I find it quite entertaining to see you attempt to demonstrate that "facts don't matter" to others by presenting non-factual, non-supported claims of your own, "just off the top of (your) head". This may be why reasonable people find it difficult to believe that you are interested in serious discussion. Good day!

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby penquin » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:37 pm

jman111 wrote:No, you are not "reading me correctly". I am taking exception to the specific examples you provided.


Thanks for clarifying, and so clearly as well. Am glad to see the other examples still hold up despite your close scrutiny.

With that in mind, would you be willing to provide an example or two of lefties telling untrue statements on this forum? PJ says it doesn't happen, but am pretty sure he would dismiss any/all examples I would provide due to his prejudicism.


I will admit, though, that I find it quite entertaining to see you attempt to demonstrate that "facts don't matter" to others by presenting non-factual, non-supported claims of your own, "just off the top of (your) head".


If no "link" is provided, then you take that to mean that the statement is non-factual? And you consider that to be a reasonable & rational position to hold, eh?

*rolls eyes*

This may be why reasonable people find it difficult to believe that you are interested in serious discussion.


If they truly beleive as such, then it is obvious they aren't reasonable people.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7617
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby pjbogart » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:18 am

penquin wrote:With that in mind, would you be willing to provide an example or two of lefties telling untrue statements on this forum? PJ says it doesn't happen, but am pretty sure he would dismiss any/all examples I would provide due to his prejudicism.


Did I say that?

pjbogart wrote:Really, Penquin? Perhaps you're perusing different threads than me. I see some disagreements, but I don't see a lot of outright dishonesty from your political opponents. If I were to post a link to a ridiculous article claiming that 99% of gun violence and global warming was caused by Republicans, you'd have a pretty good argument. But I don't see that kind of propaganda here from regular forons.

I see cringeworthy anecdotal evidence that proves nothing at all on a regular basis, but the outright false information, easily refuted and resembling carefully orchestrated propaganda? That always seems to come from our resident conservatives.

I'm not going to say that you can't point to some left-wing propaganda you've seen in the past... I'm sure it exists, but I'd call it anomalous, in the grand scheme of things. Liberals tend to produce verifiable facts, conservatives respond with verifiable falsehoods.

You're welcome to prove me wrong. There's no shortage of material to peruse. Show me where Liberal Forons produced ridiculous conspiracy theories ala Barack Obama murdering people in a cocaine-fueled frenzy after engaging in gay sex. If that liberal exists, he or she deserves the ban hammer.

Mostly, I think you just like to be disagreeable. Which is why we get along so well.


I'm guessing you were trying to catch me in a lie when I claimed Rush Limbaugh was trotting out ridiculous conspiracy theories about gun ownership and mortgages. I'm not sure why anyone would resort to inventing conspiracy theories embraced by conservatives when there are so many to choose from, but you certainly implied that I was making it all up by claiming that there was no evidence that Rush Limbaugh ever said such a thing. A few minutes on the Google and jman was able to show you that Limbaugh did, in fact, trot out that particular conspiracy theory. No concession by you that perhaps you were wrong. Telling.

I also think I was very clear in saying that perhaps you could find a lie or propaganda piece touted by a liberal on this forum, but it was the exception. As in, liberals may also get caught up in internet propaganda, but it's not their normal form of argumentation. Do liberals have the tendency to characterize things in such a way that exposes their bias? I have no doubt.

The bizarre thing about you, Penquin, is that I don't consider you a conservative outside of your dedication to gun issues. Yet you seem incapable of stepping back and evaluating arguments posed by people you don't like. Essentially, right or wrong is based upon your personal feelings about the speaker. You do a shit job of "picking your battles". Everything is a battle.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 15236
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:42 pm

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby snoqueen » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:32 am

penquin wrote:Ain't gonna dig through the entire gun thread...but do recall either snoqueen or rabble saying they don't care if it's true or not if a gun fires thousands (or maybe "hundreds") of bullets. A study was recently posted in that same thread stating thinking one needs a firearm to defend one self is akin to beleiving people have been abducted by aliens. Also, Henry is constantly making the claim that firearms are not needed for self defense...even when links have been provided showing examples of when the police weren't there to protect people and citizens were left to fend for themselves.


It was probably me, because that is what I believe. It is imperative to give equal concern for one person being shot and/or killed in a domestic dispute as for eighty-some people being shot/killed in a mass murder. Who cares how many shots were fired in what manner? It only takes one to result in a casualty, and every casualty matters and represents a human being.

And regarding fending for ourselves: consider the recent shooting if a young black man by police in Alabama following a mall shooting. Turns out he wasn't the shooter at all (police later announced their error). Instead, he'd been trying to protect other people by herding them into a store. Unfortunately, like way too many people in the mall that day (and this was later admitted to be an Alabama thing but isn't limited to Alabama) he had been carrying a gun in the mall and was waving it around while trying to guide the people to a place of safety. So the cops guessed he was the shooter (how would they know?) and he got killed. This is one of the few cops-on-citizens killing where, on the face of it, the cops' actions make some sense in context as recounted by the media.

Take the guns out of the pockets/purses of the mall shoppers that day and the young man would likely still be among us today. (Nobody else was shot, by the way.) We've been warning about the confusion too many armed random people in a crowd might cause if a shooting took place, and this is a great example of what happens (especially in a crowded urban areas) when people "fend for themselves." It isn't the only one. This is self-defense turned upside down and nobody was defended.

Harm reduction demands we accept the fact that on rare occasion somebody's life was saved by these untrained, random gun carriers, but these occasions are far out numbered by the opposite outcomes. Similarly, harm reduction demands we accept that guns that can shoot many high powered rounds very quickly cause more injury and death that a little pocket pistol. Are you willing to go down that road and take action to reduce the greater harms first?

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: Yeah, but I won't be here

Postby Cadfael » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:08 pm

snoqueen wrote:
penquin wrote: A study was recently posted in that same thread stating thinking one needs a firearm to defend one self is akin to beleiving people have been abducted by aliens.

I think that was me. I believe the actual statistic was that the number of non-law enforcement citizens who have used a gun to stop a crime is about the same number of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.
Ah. Yeah, here's one source. It was percentage, not the total number.
He points out that the percentage of people reporting a defensive gun use in Kleck's survey is similar to the percentage of Americans who say they've been abducted by aliens.

For every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime

Personally I believe the ratio is higher than one to six, but I'll accept that statistic for now.

It is not a logical step to go from "these percentages are similar" to "the people in this group share qualities with the people in that group because they have similar percentages in the general population.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests