93 replies to this topic

[Ogami]

_Ph wrote:

Thankfully, the American people have learned to see right through this sort of Orwellian doublespeak.

It's Orwellian doublespeak to point out Democrats want to take your money?

Give all your money to them if you want, leave me out of their wealth-redistribution schemes.

Orwellian doublespeak was when Clinton was talking about "contributions" when he raised everyone's taxes. It's not a contribution if you steal my money to buy yourself votes.

-Ogami

[Delvo]

scherzo, on May 17 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

Quote

Great point, Eska.

That George W. Bush condemned evil lesbians and gay men?   Even if we pretended Bush really said this, countering an argument against increased fuel economy standards with..."Republicans hate gays"...is miles off the grid. It' s nothing but a spectacularly useless non-sequitor.

Sure, if you think in terms of a debate over ideas, but this is a classic example of something different: thinking in terms of a clash between people. To them, it's not about which way to go on some particular issue is better; it's about who proposed it and which group of people is better. In that way of looking at everything, personlizing isn't a distraction from the point. It IS exactly the point.

[Palisades]

Ogami, on May 17 2006, 10:35 PM, said:

Give all your money to them if you want, leave me out of their wealth-redistribution schemes.

If Bush and the Congressmen who call themselves conservatives want to cut taxes, the responsible way to do it is to cut spending by at least as much. Instead, the Republicans have ramped up spending. So while the Republicans have cut taxes, the deficit has sky-rocketed on their watch. And don't try to scapegoat this on the Democrats because Republicans control the White House, House, and Senate.

And speaking of wealth redistribution schemes, Bush's Medicare "reform" plan seems to be massive welfare for big pharma and prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices on medicine.

Edited by Solar Wind, 18 May 2006 - 07:32 AM.

[Palisades]

scherzo, on May 17 2006, 09:47 PM, said:

Quote

Great point, Eska.

That George W. Bush condemned evil lesbians and gay men?   Even if we pretended Bush really said this, countering an argument against increased fuel economy standards with..."Republicans hate gays"...is miles off the grid. It' s nothing but a spectacularly useless non-sequitor.

Do you really think Eska intended that post as a rebuttal to an argument against increased fuel economy standards?

It's pretty clear to me that she's pointing out that a simple cut-and-replace transforms Ogami's "argument" against increased fuel economy standards (actually penalties on SUVs) into an "argument" against a ban on same-sex marriages.

Edited by Solar Wind, 18 May 2006 - 07:59 AM.

[G-man]

Solar Wind, on May 17 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Ogami, on May 17 2006, 02:41 PM, said:

Solar Wind wrote:

Ogami, imposing penalties against SUVs is an attempt at environmental protection ...

No, it's an attempt by liberal loonies to impose their wack views on the rest of society.

In response to G-Man, you said, "of course it would be better for the environment if we had no SUVs." So why is it so hard for you to accept that people dislike SUVs for environmental reasons?

  I never said that. I think that was Ogami.

And Ogami, you seem to think that the market is about manufacturer's fulfilling a consumer's demands.  It isn't.  The market is about the manufacturer creating a supply and then convincing the consumer to buy it.  They do this by manufacturing gas guzzlers, and then through an extensive marketing campaign.  And people gobble this up.  And why do the manufacturer's do this?  It is really quite simple.  They can make money.

Build 'em big, build 'em inefficient, include lots and lots of bells and whistles and then price 'em in a range where you need to take out a second mortgage in order to afford the car.  At the same time you rig up tests and a negative ad campaign denigrating the smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and all of a sudden there is a demand for what that company is producing.  And also extensively lobby and sabotage any attempt to develop alternatives that would hinder the profits of the established corporations, which is why there is no electric car program, and why the US is so far behind in developing alternative fuels.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

[Spectacles]

Quote

Solar Wind: It's pretty clear to me that she's pointing out that a simple cut-and-replace transforms Ogami's "argument" against increased fuel economy standards/SUVs into an "argument" against a ban on same-sex marriages.

Exactly. She was responding to Ogami's assertions that the real motive behind CAFE standards was an irrational, hypocritical, and socialistic Democratic dislike of SUVs--and had nothing to do with the fact that they're gas-guzzlers.

His conclusion was that this was just one more example of the totalitarian Left's efforts to force everyone to abide by their ethical standards--even when they don't abide by them themselves.

Here 'tis again:

Quote

The sole purpose of increased fuel economy standards for SUVs (which was the legislation voted down two years back) is to enact penalties preventing automakers from making them and people from buying them. Socialism in action, courtesy of the nutjob left.

I still remember Presidential Candidate John Kerry condemning the evil SUV, because that played well to his shallow base. Then a disloyal reporter asked him about the SUV seen at the Kerry mansion. That was Teresa's SUV, Kerry answered.

The left wants to tell everyone else how to live, yet exempt themselves from their own draconian rules. Why is it so unacceptable to the Religious Left that the public be allowed to make their own buying decisions, to have a free market determined by what the consumer wants, and not what some nutjob group of leftist wackos want?

-Ogami

So, Eska just turned the tables. She pointed out that one of the planks of the GOP's platform in 04 was to "protect marriage" from the "homosexual agenda"--even though the VP's daughter--and one can presume some friends of the Bushes--are gay. (By the way, I read that conservatives are gearing up for a push for that Marriage Amendment soon.)

It's become a values issue for the GOP. It will eventually backfire on them as more and more young people wonder what the fuss is about, but right now middle-aged and older voters may be confused about Iraq and so forth--but they know that gay marriage is a concept they're uncomfortable with. So this gets them to the polls.

Quote

Delvo: this is a classic example of something different: thinking in terms of a clash between people. To them, it's not about which way to go on some particular issue is better; it's about who proposed it and which group of people is better. In that way of looking at everything, personlizing isn't a distraction from the point. It IS exactly the point.

By "them" do you mean Democrats? If so, then what do you do with Ogami's remarks?

Quote

Scherzo: You're wary of Capitalist excess, when liberal excess is arguably more harmful, and almost always involves further restrictions on personal freedom.

I'm wary of excess, period--either rightward or leftward.

Quote

Scherzo: The act of regulating a popular vehicle out of existence may not define socialism, but the socialist mentality is the impetus behind the action.

How exactly? How is it socialism to regulate fuel efficiency standards in cars? And what regulations would NOT be socialistic by your standards. And how is raising CAFE standards going to result in the demise of the SUV? After all, they're making hybrid SUVs now.

Edited by Spectacles, 18 May 2006 - 08:18 AM.

[Spectacles]

Quote

Solar Wind: And speaking of wealth redistribution schemes, Bush's Medicare "reform" plan seems to be massive welfare for big pharma and prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices on medicine.

Yep.

[Palisades]

G-man, on May 18 2006, 07:13 AM, said:

Quote

In response to G-Man, you said, "of course it would be better for the environment if we had no SUVs." So why is it so hard for you to accept that people dislike SUVs for environmental reasons?

Erm, I meant that Ogami said those words in a post in response to you. I was responding to Ogami, referencing something he said to you.

Edited by Solar Wind, 18 May 2006 - 09:34 AM.

[BklnScott]

Ogami, on May 18 2006, 12:35 AM, said:

_Ph wrote:

Thankfully, the American people have learned to see right through this sort of Orwellian doublespeak.

It's Orwellian doublespeak to point out Democrats want to take your money?

No, that's just dishonest, since all politicians "want to take your money."  This is Orwellian doublespeak:

ogami said:

Be very wary of rich politicians who want to tax the rich. Because what they mean is that they have their wealth, and do not want any company.

Explain how taxing the rich is a means of keeping people from becoming rich.  In fact, the reverse is--quite obviously--closer to the truth: taxing the poor and middle class while giving tax BREAKS to the rich is a means of making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.  

Quote

Give all your money to them if you want, leave me out of their wealth-redistribution schemes.

Funny thing: you don't get to opt out of taxes.  It's the price we pay for a civilized society.  (Oliver Wendell Holmes).  

And you're not getting rich on what the Army pays you, so, rest easy: you'll do well under the impending Democratic congress.  And, hey, maybe we can do something about the size of that paycheck, too: you deserve more.  Unfortunately, reality being what it is, that means someone *else* deserves less.  I say we take it from the top 1%, i.e., those who can best afford it.  

You disagree?  

Quote

Orwellian doublespeak was when Clinton was talking about "contributions" when he raised everyone's taxes.

I pay more now than I did then.  My mother pays more now than she did then.  My wealthy friends?  They pay less.  And that sh*t ain't right.

[Ogami]

G-Man wrote:

And Ogami, you seem to think that the market is about manufacturer's fulfilling a consumer's demands. It isn't. The market is about the manufacturer creating a supply and then convincing the consumer to buy it.

You just described CNN, ABC News, NBC News, and CBS News.
__________________________________

_Ph questioned this sentence:

Be very wary of rich politicians who want to tax the rich. Because what they mean is that they have their wealth, and do not want any company.

Obviously the Democrats would never pass any tax laws that would impact themselves in any way. Since they would be the ones writing the tax code, it stands to reason that they above anyone would figure out loopholes to exempt themselves.

But I think you are confusing existing wealth with new earnings, Ph. Those are two different things, and new tax laws affect new earnings. (Except that retroactive tax that Clinton came up with 1993, but that's something else entirely.)

I pay more now than I did then. My mother pays more now than she did then. My wealthy friends? They pay less. And that sh*t ain't right.

John Kerry feels your pain!  

-Ogami

[G-man]

Ogami, on May 18 2006, 03:01 PM, said:

G-Man wrote:

And Ogami, you seem to think that the market is about manufacturer's fulfilling a consumer's demands. It isn't. The market is about the manufacturer creating a supply and then convincing the consumer to buy it.

You just described CNN, ABC News, NBC News, and CBS News.
__________________________________

And just who are their sponsors and/or owners?

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

[Delvo]

Spectacles, on May 18 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

Quote

Delvo: this is a classic example of something different: thinking in terms of a clash between people. To them, it's not about which way to go on some particular issue is better; it's about who proposed it and which group of people is better. In that way of looking at everything, personlizing isn't a distraction from the point. It IS exactly the point.

By "them" do you mean Democrats?

Actually, as you can see in the context, it means those who do this thing of converting a conversation about an issue into one about people even though going after someone's position on B is not a real response to his/her position on A. But ya, the tendency to do that is rather stronger on the Democrats' side.

Spectacles, on May 18 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

If so, then what do you do with Ogami's remarks?

Mostly I just don't read them. Tell me which remarks you have in mind in which post and I'll give a response, I guess.

Spectacles, on May 18 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

Quote

Scherzo: The act of regulating a popular vehicle out of existence may not define socialism, but the socialist mentality is the impetus behind the action.

How exactly? How is it socialism to regulate fuel efficiency standards in cars? And what regulations would NOT be socialistic by your standards.

I think some people have come to equate socialism with anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism and anti-individual-wealth, so anything that looks anti-capitalist, anti-consumer, anti-wealth, or anti-using-your-wealth-as-you-want-to to them can be called "socialism".

Edited by Delvo, 19 May 2006 - 01:09 PM.

[Call Me Robin]

_ph, on May 18 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

I pay more now than I did then.  My mother pays more now than she did then.  My wealthy friends?  They pay less.  And that sh*t ain't right.

Well, they'll now have more money to buy yachts.  That will help the economy because, with more demand for yachts, the yacht builders will be able to find work.  Everyone wins, right?

[BklnScott]

Call Me Robin, on May 19 2006, 02:19 PM, said:

_ph, on May 18 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

I pay more now than I did then.  My mother pays more now than she did then.  My wealthy friends?  They pay less.  And that sh*t ain't right.

Well, they'll now have more money to buy yachts.  That will help the economy because, with more demand for yachts, the yacht builders will be able to find work.  Everyone wins, right?