The Case for Voting Democrat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2013, 11:57 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (I mean, I did notice the falsehood, but not the under-the-hood context editing!)
But for reference, these two statements did not occur together in my original post. My quoted statement was not a response to frankksj's quoted statement. One might be inclined to call that a little bit dishonest.

It's right there in black & white. Don't try to edit the post, I made a copy. Look at your post #23. What is the sentence you quoted right above your "in accord with your gut feelings"? It was my statement “I agree it's embarrassing to call such basic math an 'axiom'”. So what 'axiom' was I referring to? Go up a couple sentences, and, yeap, it's EXACTLY like I said, the 100,000x200 comment. So your quoted statement WAS a response to that, and NOT taken out of context. If you dispute that, then tell me, when you wrote that my axiom was not "Self-evident" and "obvious” but rather "in accord with your gut feelings", what on earth were you referring to??? My 100,000x200 statement was the only thing you were responding to! So, it wasn't out of context. You just slipped up and said something dumb (which I do too). So trying to go back and pretend like I misquoted you because you can't admit you slipped up is pathetic.

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You really don't get it, do you?

Nobody, ever, in the history of all time, has gone about analysis in the farcical "without axioms and logic and reason" manner you have here invented.

Nobody ever.

I can't even tell what you're trying to say. "Without axioms and logic and reason". That is not cogent.

Sure it is. I asked over and over and over again in that post for ANY of the liberals to confirm or deny that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”. I couldn't get anybody to say 'yes' or 'no'. Denying something so basic IS a rejection of axioms and logic and reason.

Or, look at my comments about minimum wage. The Keynesians argue that raising it has ZERO effect on unemployment. Well then, anything times zero is still zero, so why not keep raising it indefinitely? That is simple logic and reason. It's a basic, primitive axiom that zero times anything is still zero. Yet the Keynesians totally reject that.

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you to conduct a simple experiment for me:
define Keynesianism.

It's right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesianism

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm not concerned with other people in other discussions. But let's consider your, uh, thought process here:
Chas, Girlyman, and sporehux behaved in a certain manner,
THEREFORE,
Keynesian economists (all of them) behave in a certain manner.

"Logic".

Are you capable of making a single post without engaging in ludicrously fallacious overgeneralisation?

Well, I've debated lots of Keyensian economists, and in my experience, they all respond the same way. I've read a lot of Paul Krugman, arguably the most prominent Keynesian right now, a little bit of Paul Samuelson, and they certainly do it. So, I made an observation that is consistent with everything I've observed.

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, that's finally a citation. It's a random blog post, but okay. It's a start.

If you're really a physicist, I'm sorry for doubting you. But comments like this make me wonder. When you click the 'about' link you'll read of the author: “Prior to joining the World Bank, I taught in the Department of Political Economy at The Johns Hopkins University.  I have a Ph.D. In Economics from Stanford, studied for two terms at Cambridge University (on Keynes, with his student Lord Richard Kahn as my tutor), and have a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Princeton.”

Given his background it's absurd you dismiss him as some random blogger, and question that he's a Keyenesian economist when he puts it there in his CV!

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Comparing a casual blog post with an academic article. Seems legit.

It's hardly a casual blog post. He's a respected Keynesian economists and the whole site, with thousands of pages, is all dedicated to Keynesian economic theory.


(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Things that are "self-evidently" true are exceedingly rare. This eludes you. You've declared the particular set of premises you hold as being axiomatic and self-evident; this despite the fact that they are, self-evidently, not acknowledged as such. It's a bizarrely contradictory stance to open with.

The whole “axiom” in question is “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”. You're a physicist and you still claim that's not self-evident??? That's too complicated for you? Do you need to consult a mathematician? Comments like saying things that are “self-evidently true” are exceedingly rare seriously makes me question how you can possibly be a physicist. To me there are countless self-evident truths all around you that you confront every day. There's the fact that if I'm hungry, eating food will fix that. There's the fact that falling down a flight of stairs hurts. Of course there's basic math, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc. There are SOOOO many millions of things around us that are self-evident, I can't comprehend how a physicist can't recognize them.

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us consider a starting point. Do you, or do you not, acknowledged that data admit of multiple interpretations?

Yes, I've already said that in general empirical data is subject to interpretation.

(03-12-2013 10:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that according to your silly little definition, there are no axioms of economics, given that there is no consensus view of economics in the field?

No, I don't. Because, in my observation, Austrian economists will regularly present axioms, or logical statements, and the Keynesians WILL NOT DISPUTE them, they just choose to ignore them. See my comments about 100,000x200, or the minimum wage, etc. When I present basic, logical statements like that which I feel are so self-evident they are not controversial, I've yet to see a Keynesian say “No, I disagree”. In my experience, they always just ignore the axioms and insist that axioms and logic cannot be used in the field of economics. So, they really are axioms in that they are self-evident truths that nobody can dispute. Keynesians just reject the entire use of axioms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 11:59 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 11:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, and one last thing to round it out for tonight. Y'all may notice, further up the page, frankksj's post 25, wherein the following two statements were taken from posts 18 and 23 respectively.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, I agree that calling “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” an axiom is, well, an insult to axioms since it's such a basic, primitive statement, and not a theory or logical construct,
(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Self-evident" and "obvious" apparently here meaning "in accord with your gut feelings".

To which he adds:
(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You realize you just argued that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” is neither “self-evident” nor “obvious” and that it's just my “gut feeling”. Ok, if you say so.

It's slickly done - I didn't even notice at first (because I really shouldn't care too much how some blowhard tries to misinterpret me).
(I mean, I did notice the falsehood, but not the under-the-hood context editing!)

But for reference, these two statements did not occur together in my original post. My quoted statement was not a response to frankksj's quoted statement. So there's that.

One might be inclined to call that a little bit dishonest.

I'm going with disingenuous, but that's just Girly. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
04-12-2013, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 04:52 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That axiom IS accepted without controversy. If I were to ask Hafnof, or anybody with rudimentary math skills “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”, they could answer “Yes, it is, and it always will be no matter what”. There IS no controversy around it. That's why it's an axiom. It MUST be true. And then when I point out that they're basing their views on an assumption that defies such a basic axiom, they refuse to address the axiom.

If you were to ask Hafnof he would introduce you to the actual axioms behind natural number arithmetic[1]:
1. 0 is a natural number.
2. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
3. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
4. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
5. For all a and b, if a is a natural number and a = b, then b is also a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under equality.
6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number.
7. For every natural number n, S(n) = 0 is false. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
8. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n. That is, S is an injection.
9. If K is a set such that:
0 is in K, and
for every natural number n, if n is in K, then S(n) is in K,
then K contains every natural number.
Anything outside this set is not an axiom for the logical system of natural numbers, or at least is not a necessary one.

Axioms aren't "uncontroversial things". They are the founding assumptions of any given logical system, from which the remainder of the logical system is derived. Axioms are generally "common sense" in some sense, or "obvious" but we state axioms for a number of reasons:
1. So we can explicitly derive the rest of the logical system from them, and
2. So we can question them, and consider alternative logical systems for which they might not be true.

For example, we can take the axioms of Euclidean geometry[1] and change them to produce various forms of non-Euclidean geometry[2].

For every axiom and logical system derived from it there is an alternate or contrary axiom that yields a different logical system. In those alternative logical systems your favourite unquestionable axiom that "MUST" be true, is false. And that's ok. That's how axioms work.

All this is besides the point, however, which was that reason alone is no sufficient to reliably describe reality. It is essential that our reason make predictions and that these predictions are tested in order to validate our reasoning. I'm not arguing for or against your point, I'm pointing out that your point is poorly made and unsoundly based.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#Axioms
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
04-12-2013, 05:02 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(04-12-2013 04:41 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ...
If you were to ask Hafnof
...

Who asked you?

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
04-12-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
@Hafnof, thank you for that. Since I'm a software coder, and not a physicist or a mathematician, I probably should stick to analogies within my realm of expertise lest I get a smack down from the pro's....

However, as a professional mathematician, let me ask your opinion, please...

What started this feud was my post that many have forgotten what insurance is for; namely a managed risk pool to pay for unexpected expenses, where everybody contributes a premium which, on average, is more than they would like pay for the expenses directly, but it insulates them from the risk that they might have higher-than-average expenses. Therefore, when you regulate the insurance companies so they all markup their expenses 25% (80/20 payout), and you then order the insurance company to cover a routine, annual expense for everyone of their policyholders, this presents 2 problems:

1) Assuming the insured could use a buying club instead to obtain the same negotiated rate, the insurance company is simply marking up the expense 25% and acting as a middle-man who adds no value. Thus the insured will pay 25% more to go through the middle-man than if they paid directly.

2) While no insurance company wants to pay more than any other insurance company, once you mandate EVERYBODY has to buy this insurance, and every insurance company MUST cover this annual expense, the insurance companies have a financial incentive to see the cost of this procedure rise across-the-board for everyone, since they get to keep 25% of the cost, the higher the cost, the higher their cut. And there are not the usual checks and balances where a policyholder may cancel or switch providers, since the law requires him to have a policy, and all insurance companies have to offer this.

To me, this was a pretty obvious issue, and it merited debating if there's not a better solution that provides the good (getting everybody insured) without the perverse financial incentive. I proposed, for example, that perhaps a better solution is for the government to give everybody a fixed tax rebate of $x (the expected cost of this annual checkup) provided the taxpayer submitted proof from an accredited doctor that the checkup was performed. This way, the taxpayers aren't unnecessarily paying a middle-man 25% for adding no value, and since the patient could pocket any cost reduction, you preserve the usual free-market incentive where the doctors compete to provide the best service at the best price.

The response from all the Obamacare-defenders was the usual vitriol. They insisted everything I said was wrong, there was no financial incentive, etc. And when I laid it out mathematically, showing that when you markup an expense 25%, your profit goes up when the expense goes up. This was the "100,000x200 > 100,000x2" statement in question. None of them would either acknowledge nor dispute the math. They just insisted everything I wrote was wrong, and Obamacare didn't introduce any such financial incentive. Even cjlr, a physicist, was unable to accept this point.

So, as a mathematician, will you comment whether the point I made is correct, or, if there's a flaw in my logic, will you be kind enough to point it out?

Thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's right there in black & white. Don't try to edit the post, I made a copy. Look at your post #23. What is the sentence you quoted right above your "in accord with your gut feelings"? It was my statement “I agree it's embarrassing to call such basic math an 'axiom'”. So what 'axiom' was I referring to? Go up a couple sentences, and, yeap, it's EXACTLY like I said, the 100,000x200 comment. So your quoted statement WAS a response to that, and NOT taken out of context. If you dispute that, then tell me, when you wrote that my axiom was not "Self-evident" and "obvious” but rather "in accord with your gut feelings", what on earth were you referring to??? My 100,000x200 statement was the only thing you were responding to! So, it wasn't out of context. You just slipped up and said something dumb (which I do too). So trying to go back and pretend like I misquoted you because you can't admit you slipped up is pathetic.

You altered the context of my statement by juxtaposing it with something it was not directly addressed to.

That is not honest.

Oh, well.

Your criteria for self-evident and obvious are "I agree with it". That's tragically insufficient.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Sure it is. I asked over and over and over again in that post for ANY of the liberals to confirm or deny that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”. I couldn't get anybody to say 'yes' or 'no'. Denying something so basic IS a rejection of axioms and logic and reason.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Declining to explicitly accept a trivial statement has approximately zero bearing on anything - but keep on beating a dead horse, I think there's still a couple shreds of meat on them there bones...

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Or, look at my comments about minimum wage. The Keynesians argue that raising it has ZERO effect on unemployment. Well then, anything times zero is still zero, so why not keep raising it indefinitely? That is simple logic and reason. It's a basic, primitive axiom that zero times anything is still zero. Yet the Keynesians totally reject that.

Yeah, that's just a thing you made up.

Past changes in minimum wage are not correlated with employment, according to what statistics exist. Past changes in minimum wage are relatively small as a percentage of the total minimum wage.

The conclusion sane people might draw from this is that future changes in minimum wage, on the same order of past changes, will have the same effect as past changes (to wit, no statistically significant correlation with employment).

The conclusion your straw man reaches is that if occasional and incremental changes in minimum wage appear to have no statistically significant effect on employment, then therefore instantaneous and infinite changes will have no effect. This is not a thing anybody has ever said in real life outside your mind.

I'm quite convinced you are incapable of thinking of things in any but the most absolute sense. Since most people do not do this, it is not surprising that you cannot understand them.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesianism

Thanks. The laziest possible answer.

I rather suspect it's because you're well aware that providing a real definition would entail some statement to the effect that "Keynesian economists believe action X will have economic impact Y".

That sounds just a little bit like a axiom postulate, no? So there's that.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Well, I've debated lots of Keyensian economists, and in my experience, they all respond the same way. I've read a lot of Paul Krugman, arguably the most prominent Keynesian right now, a little bit of Paul Samuelson, and they certainly do it. So, I made an observation that is consistent with everything I've observed.

Let's review.

A says: All X are Y.
B says: Can you justify that?
A says: Of course - some X are Y.

Not logic. Thanks for playing!

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you're really a physicist, I'm sorry for doubting you.

Thanks, I guess.

Does this mean you're admitting that your physics analogy was utterly off-base?
(because protip: it was)

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But comments like this make me wonder. When you click the 'about' link you'll read of the author: “Prior to joining the World Bank, I taught in the Department of Political Economy at The Johns Hopkins University.  I have a Ph.D. In Economics from Stanford, studied for two terms at Cambridge University (on Keynes, with his student Lord Richard Kahn as my tutor), and have a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Princeton.”

Given his background it's absurd you dismiss him as some random blogger, and question that he's a Keyenesian economist when he puts it there in his CV!

I didn't. I said nothing[i] about his credentials (which I did in fact look up). I merely commented on the [i]context in which he was speaking.

I noted that he was writing in a much less academic register than the counterexample you provided, which was hardly an equitable comparison.

Try to address what I really wrote, okay?

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's hardly a casual blog post. He's a respected Keynesian economists and the whole site, with thousands of pages, is all dedicated to Keynesian economic theory.

It's still a personal blog.

So, y'know - not a published academic work in an economics journal, say...

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The whole “axiom” in question is “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”.

That's not an axiom.

So, there's that.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're a physicist and you still claim that's not self-evident???

It's self-evident should one accept the actual axioms underlying elementary arithmetic (from which it follows trivially), which Hafnof has graciously explained in detail.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Comments like saying things that are “self-evidently true” are exceedingly rare seriously makes me question how you can possibly be a physicist.

Oh, so we're back to questioning my credentials. Swell.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  To me there are countless self-evident truths all around you that you confront every day. There's the fact that if I'm hungry, eating food will fix that. There's the fact that falling down a flight of stairs hurts. Of course there's basic math, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc. There are SOOOO many millions of things around us that are self-evident, I can't comprehend how a physicist can't recognize them.

They're rare in such fields as mathematics, physics, and philosophy. The sorts of fields one might consider germane.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the postulates (what you would wrongly call axioms) of, say, quantum mechanics are self-evident and uncontroversial?

If you can't tell the difference between those and such childish observations as "food satisfies hunger", I don't think I can help you.

Part and parcel of your one-dimensional black and white worldview, I guess...

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, I've already said that in general empirical data is subject to interpretation.

And you go on to say that there's a right way and a wrong way. And because according to you the right way is using "axioms logic and reason", anything else is the wrong way, and despite actually being distinguished merely by proceeding from different premises, you instead conclude it uses no premises at all...

That doesn't even make sense, but I admire the way you don't let that stop you.

(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, I don't. Because, in my observation, Austrian economists will regularly present axioms, or logical statements, and the Keynesians WILL NOT DISPUTE them, they just choose to ignore them. See my comments about 100,000x200, or the minimum wage, etc. When I present basic, logical statements like that which I feel are so self-evident they are not controversial, I've yet to see a Keynesian say “No, I disagree”. In my experience, they always just ignore the axioms and insist that axioms and logic cannot be used in the field of economics. So, they really are axioms in that they are self-evident truths that nobody can dispute. Keynesians just reject the entire use of axioms.

That doesn't even follow. Learn to logic.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
This is pointless. We dispute some point. I address it, ask you questions. You ignore them and run, but claim victory, and then your fellow liberals claim victory. It just happened again, and this time it's REALLY obvious.

I made a claim that “100kx200>100kx2” and said it was self-evident. You responded that my claim is not self-evident and just “gut feelings”. I copied/paste the exchange, only omitting for brevity the excess verbiage in between without changing the context at all, you accused me of being dishonest in my editing, claiming I changed the context. So, in my last post I asked you “what on earth were you referring to” when you said my claim was just a “gut feeling”? If I took it out of context, then WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?!

You ran from this. You just said I was “juxtaposing it with something it was not directly addressed to”, without explaining what “IT” you're referring to. When you read your post in context, the only claim of mine which you quoted prior to say it's not self-evident is the “100kx200>100kx2” one. That's the only claim in that post. Naturally those already on your side, like Revenant77, run and post a -3 on my reputation claiming that I misquoted you and took your comments out of context.

This is what's bullshit. If we took our debate exchange, and swapped out all the nouns, so it was a benign topic, it would be pretty clear what's going on.

For example, our very first exchange was in the 'political views' when I said as a libertarian my primary objective is liberty, letting everyone exercise free will. I still value equality and other goals, but hold liberty as the most important, and the only time I ever disagree on a political issue is if someone is using force to coerce people into doing something against their will, and is doing it at the national level so the people don't even have the chance of relocating to escape the coercion. You insisted that this wasn't the case. So I said “Fine, name one issue where you disagree with libertarian that does NOT involve you coercing people into doing things against their will at a national level.” You ran from the question, refused to answer, but still insisted you were right. I asked it many different ways, nice ways, and not so nice ways (“club-wielding neanderthal”). But no matter how I asked the question, you ran from it every time. Yet, you maintain you were right, you proved me wrong, and those who share your political leanings agree with you.

Now, swapping out the nouns. “Fred” claim that the only difference between the 2005 BMW 5-series and 2006 is that the headlights change. “Charlie” insist that's bull shit and not the only difference. Fred challenges Charlie to name one change besides the headlights. Charlie refuses and runs from the question, but still insists he knows Fred is wrong. Fred repeats the challenge over and over again. Charlie runs every time. But Charlie always insists he's right, Fred is wrong, and all of Charlie's friend pat him on the back for blowing Fred out of the water on that one.

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one asserting a positive. Fred cannot prove that the only difference was headlights, just like I cannot prove that the only difference is the use of coercion. The burden of proof is on Charlie to identify one difference OTHER than headlights, just like the burden is on you to identify one difference OTHER than coercion.

My analysis of our debate would be the same regardless of who was debating and what the topic was.

As far as the whole physics debate, we've gotten so caught in the weeds I don't think either of us remember what the point is. This started ages ago when I presented made a logical assertion, a statement that I felt was uncontroversially true, and thus fit the definition of an axiom. Those responders refused to state whether my “axiom” was true or false, they wouldn't dispute that my logical assertion was factual. Rather they just argued that you couldn't use axioms and logic to solve a complex issue like economics. I responded that Einstein used axioms and logic to solve far more complex issues, like his theory of relativity. I was not claiming to be a physicist, just pointing out that axioms and logic DO have a place in evaluating data. Now, you're off debating me that my use of the word axiom, while technically correct according to the dictionary, is wrong if you study the word in depth. Fine, that's semantics. Then you're arguing that Einstein didn't ignore the empirical data. Strawman, I never said he did. Then you're arguing I'm no expert on physicists. Fine, it's true. I like reading the “for dummies” books, like those from Stephen Hawkings, as a hobby, but certainly am not an expert. So we've strayed SOOOO far from the original point, I can't even tell if we're actually fighting or agreeing. You earlier made a comment that Einstein obviously used axioms and logic, which therefore, seems to only validate the claim I made in the beginning. So, then what are we fighting about if you agree that it makes sense to apply axioms and logic to complex subjects like economics? Shouldn't you agree with me, then, that if I present a logical statement which I assert it must be true (whether it's a true axiom or not) that it would be helpful if the debater on the opposing side would at least acknowledge it and state if he feels the statement is true or false, rather than insisting logic and axioms have no useful role and sticking to a position that violates basic logic?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(04-12-2013 12:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  My analysis of our debate would be the same regardless of who was debating and what the topic was.

My analysis is you got an Obama hair up your ass. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it ain't a black man got elected massah up your ass. ... But that's just Girly.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
04-12-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(04-12-2013 12:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 12:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  My analysis of our debate would be the same regardless of who was debating and what the topic was.

My analysis is you got an Obama hair up your ass. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it ain't a black man got elected massah up your ass. ... But that's just Girly.

Yeah, I REALLY, REALLY hate Obama, and it's because, although I dislike the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans, I had hoped that Obama would be different, and, well more liberal. Perhaps it's unfair to hate him more than GW, but I cut GW slack because he didn't try to be intellectual, he didn't pretend to be a man of the people, nor a crusader of the disadvantaged. We all knew he was a gun-toting, shoot-first, moronic cowboy, and he didn't try to hide it.

With Obama, however, he promised to help the poor and reign in inequality. Instead, he dumped trillions into the 1%'s bank account and inequality has soared to the highest levels ever, and the poor are getting wiped out. He promised a more 'liberal' healthcare system, and instead we got a crony-capitalist system that forces us to buy a shitty product from the private, for-profit corporations that funded his campaign. He promised to shutdown Guantanamo, stop torture, and expand civil rights. Instead, he kept it open, launches more drone strikes than any other President, slaughtering thousands of innocent people, and he repealed Habeus Corpus and argued he can kill any American without judicial process in his sole discretion, and he eliminated the 4th amendment by expanding the NSA to wiretap everybody, and lied about it.

I didn't vote for him, and I always take Democrats promises with a grain of salt, but seriously I NEVER expected it to be like this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: