Presidential Election: 2012

[FoolKiller]

I can't believe it. I saw it just this morning. The local Fox 19 affiliate here in Cincy has produced what is probably the most unbiased and informative political piece that I have ever seen on any Fox station. Ben Swann is my new local tv hero. I wonder if the heads at fox have decided to cut the other networks off at the pass by jumping on the RP bandwagon now instead of pushing another flavor of the month candidate, or if Ben Swann is personally responsible for the 'Reality Check'. Either way, it's good to finally hear this type of honesty about the subject on network TV.

Fox 19 WXIX is not network TV. It is a local station which has a contractual agreement to air Fox TV (separate division from Fox News with only small amounts of synergy crossover), and so unfortunately Ben Swann's piece was only seen in the Cincy TV market and by those who happen upon it online.

That said, it is good to see someone other than Jon Stewart saying it. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Fox 19 WXIX is not network TV. It is a local station which has a contractual agreement to air Fox TV (separate division from Fox News with only small amounts of synergy crossover), and so unfortunately Ben Swann's piece was only seen in the Cincy TV market and by those who happen upon it online.

That said, it is good to see someone other than Jon Stewart saying it. Thanks for posting the link.

You're right, i may have worded that badly. But YES! It is so nice to see this piece! It made my morning.

 

[Strittan]

I can't believe it. I saw it just this morning. The local Fox 19 affiliate here in Cincy has produced what is probably the most unbiased and informative political piece that I have ever seen on any Fox station. Ben Swann is my new local tv hero. I wonder if the heads at fox have decided to cut the other networks off at the pass by jumping on the RP bandwagon now instead of pushing another flavor of the month candidate, or if Ben Swann is personally responsible for the 'Reality Check'. Either way, it's good to finally hear this type of honesty about the subject on network TV.

This is becoming intresting for sure.

Ron Paul for president!

 

[satchelmcqueen]

I'm all for Ron to win, but it's still gonna be super hard to do what he wants. They're are lots of rich people who will persuade him from not going as far as he needs to, to change things. Also all these major networks are owned by insanely rich people who will be screwed with more taxes and less money for them if Ron wins. Something really needs to be done tho because America is really starting to turn to shambles.

if ron wins i promise, you have nothing to worry about here. the rich or anyone else wont persuade him to change on anything. just go look at his record. he has never changed. most votes will say something like 255 yea, 1 nay... over and over again. that 1 nay is ron. his record proves what im saying. he just cannot be bought or talked into anything that is unconstitutional.

people also need to know that in pauls budget bill if elected, he is going to cut the presidential pay from $400,000 per year to $39,339. he says that is what the mean average is for the american worker and he wants to lead by example.

and not only that, but for years and years, lobbyist always pass his office up and never even attempt to go in because they know it is a waste of their time to try to buy him off.

he cannot be bought or persuaded against the people as his record shows.

as far as the news media goes, yes you are right. they are owned by very rich and powerful people. hence the treatment paul gets from them. blackout type coverage, misquotes about paul, and just crappy coverage. all we can do is spread his message for him. its up to us. we have to go around the media. im starting locally. the media mis represents paul on a daily basis. this will only get worse. but with each vote gained, paul can win. its up to us as americans to fight for the guy who fights for us.

glad u like ron.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

I can't believe it. I saw it just this morning. The local Fox 19 affiliate here in Cincy has produced what is probably the most unbiased and informative political piece that I have ever seen on any Fox station. Ben Swann is my new local tv hero. I wonder if the heads at fox have decided to cut the other networks off at the pass by jumping on the RP bandwagon now instead of pushing another flavor of the month candidate, or if Ben Swann is personally responsible for the 'Reality Check'. Either way, it's good to finally hear this type of honesty about the subject on network TV.

​

wow! i just watched this video from the ronpaulforums i am a member at. this reporter is very UN BIASED and i respect him so much for it. great news segment. if only the rest of the media would follow suit!

 

[satchelmcqueen]

now, how do i get a RON PAUL 2012 decal on my GT5 car? lol

 

[Omnis]

I did. Having a supply means nothing if there is no demand.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, go study elementary mathematics.

Explain to me what I said that defied elementary mathematics.

 

[Dapper]

Explain to me what I said that defied elementary mathematics.

Ok, here is one thing.

Bush also showed a great deal of intelligence in office.

Then this.

You should spend some time studying economics.

Explain to me how allowing people to keep more of the money they earn will harm the economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...on-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGh9Z1oH_blog.html
In elementary school kids learn to read graphs. 💡 This graph indicates that republican/your view on how the economy should work is completely wrong, or defies elementary mathematics.

(waits for a response that has no evidence and continues to defy math)

To stay on topic, here is a video of Obama saying truths or blatantly lying?

 

[Danoff]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...on-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGh9Z1oH_blog.html
In elementary school kids learn to read graphs. 💡 This graph indicates that republican/your view on how the economy should work is completely wrong, or defies elementary mathematics.

Don't confuse jobs with a healthy economy.... also that's a real stretch claiming that reading charts is mathematics... or trying to find somewhere that suggests that I don't know how to read a chart. I don't even think you believe what you wrote (that I don't know how to read a chart), you're just trying to not look like a liar.

(It's incontrovertible that if you tax everyone at a high enough rate the government can provide 100% employment - Soviet Russia tried this and solved their employment problem nicely.)

 

[Tornado]

Ok, here is one thing.

So Danoff saying Bush showed intelligence in office somehow means he is incapable of performing school math.


...


Do you even know what mathematics are, or can we file another thing under "words Dapper likes to throw around without knowing their meaning"?

 

[Dapper]

(waits for a response that has no evidence and continues to defy math)

It didn't take long!

Don't confuse jobs with a healthy economy....

That is because you don't understand how an economy works! Prove me wrong. I can also find a standard of living graph that will prove your economic ideologies are wrong.

also that's a real stretch claiming that reading charts is mathematics...

You are too funny. Graphing calculators were invented as a conspiracy just to prove you wrong I bet.

or trying to find somewhere that suggests that I don't know how to read a chart. I don't even think you believe what you wrote (that I don't know how to read a chart), you're just trying to not look like a liar.

If someone post a graph, or chart, and someone else says the opposite of what the chart says (with no amount of evidence), it is fair to say the second person doesn't know what they looked at.

So Danoff saying Bush showed intelligence in office somehow means he is incapable of performing school math.

And you too apparently.

Do you even know what mathematics are, or can we file another thing under "words Dapper likes to throw around without knowing their meaning"?

Can you say anything constructive or is everything you say utterly worthless? Your inablity to understand the words I use is no means of measuring my ability to use them.
Bush made the debt go up, and unemployment went up. Saying that is intelligent shows a lack of basic understanding in math- the numbers he, Bush, produced can not be construed as intelligent unless one doesn't understand the numbers, and therefore math. Do I really need to state the overtly obvious every post?

 

[shmogt]

 

[Danoff]

That is because you don't understand how an economy works! Prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong? The jobs = a health economy? I already did - Soviet Russia Q.E.D.

I can also find a standard of living graph that will prove your economic ideologies are wrong.

Have at it. (Hint: It won't show what you think it does)

You are too funny. Graphing calculators were invented as a conspiracy just to prove you wrong I bet.

This is known as a strawman fallacy.

If someone post a graph, or chart, and someone else says the opposite of what the chart says (with no amount of evidence), it is fair to say the second person doesn't know what they looked at.

Nobody said the exact opposite of what that chart said. And the fact that you think someone did suggests.... well... I'll let you figure that out.

 

[Tornado]

Can you say anything constructive or is everything you say utterly worthless?

Do you really want to spend another 20-30 posts arguing about the inaccuracies in your posts until you devolve into a slobbering rage claiming that you never said things that you definitely said, ultimately resulting in you to ragequitting from this thread for a few days before coming back to repeat the cycle anew after hoping everyone has forgotten?



Or can we simply cut out the middleman this time? And by the way:

Your inablity to understand the words I use is no means of measuring my ability to use them.

Says the person who uses the word "objective fact" to describe "any vaguely relevant piece of information that supports what I'm saying."

 

[Dapper]

Prove what wrong?

That your economic ideology works. Show me something that proves you arrived at your conclusion from something other than rhetoric.

Nobody said the exact opposite of what that chart said.

You have a lot of times. For instance-

You think higher taxes will help the economy? Even the staunchest pro-tax liberals recognize that taxes are a drain on the economy - they slow down economic growth and job creation. This is well known fact.

This is opposing the graph I posted, clearly.

 

[Danoff]

That your economic ideology works. Show me something that proves you arrived at your conclusion from something other than rhetoric.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

You have a lot of times. For instance-

This is opposing the graph I posted, clearly.

Private job creation... obviously. I shouldn't have to spell that out for you.

 

[Dapper]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. And you have nothing that supports your beliefs, as usual. Everything about an economy you believe in is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, despite succinct evidence that shows how the US economy works at it's best and what causes it not to work so well, you continue to support the opposite.

 

[Danoff]

Everything about an economy you believe in is unsubstantiated.

Like what?

Furthermore, despite succinct evidence that shows how the US economy works at it's best and what causes it not to work so well, you continue to support the opposite.

It seems like you might be trying to talk about your employment vs. tax rate chart here, but this doesn't follow from that chart. That chart is not succinct evidence showing how the US economy works best. Far from it. It's a chart of taxes and employment. Not "best working economy" vs "Danoff". There are many ways to read that chart, many conclusions one might try to draw from it. For example, one might draw the conclusion that taxes get raised when employment is high, or that taxes get raised when the government "creates" jobs, or that when taxes were high, some other factor that has nothing to do with taxes affected employment.

Employment is not economic health (as I have explained to you). You're falling into one of the classic traps - reading what you want into the data. Your conclusion (I'll be explicit - the conclusion that increased taxes somehow increase employment) isn't even close to being supported by that chart.

Since all of the above is true, you must be talking about something else. You have provided some sort of evidence about what makes a good economy that suggests that a large central government that is heavily involved in taxation and redistribution somehow benefits economic growth. I have no idea what that would be, but you must have shown it somewhere. Please repost it so that I can comment.

 

[Tornado]

And you have nothing that supports your beliefs, as usual.

Ignoring evidence when it is inconvenient for you ≠ Lacking evidence, just like misrepresenting evidence to support what you are saying ≠ having evidence.

 

[FoolKiller]

Like what?



It seems like you might be trying to talk about your employment vs. tax rate chart here, but this doesn't follow from that chart. That chart is not succinct evidence showing how the US economy works best. Far from it. It's a chart of taxes and employment. Not "best working economy" vs "Danoff". There are many ways to read that chart, many conclusions one might try to draw from it. For example, one might draw the conclusion that taxes get raised when employment is high, or that taxes get raised when the government "creates" jobs, or that when taxes were high, some other factor that has nothing to do with taxes affected employment.

Employment is not economic health (as I have explained to you). You're falling into one of the classic traps - reading what you want into the data. Your conclusion (I'll be explicit - the conclusion that increased taxes somehow increase employment) isn't even close to being supported by that chart.

Since all of the above is true, you must be talking about something else. You have provided some sort of evidence about what makes a good economy that suggests that a large central government that is heavily involved in taxation and redistribution somehow benefits economic growth. I have no idea what that would be, but you must have shown it somewhere. Please repost it so that I can comment.

Allow me to simplify:

Temporal coincidence does not = proof.

For example:

Dapper's chart shows high taxes = high employment as much as this chart shows a lack of pirates = global warming.

 

[Dapper]

Just forget the numerous things I've posted that shows how wrong Republican ideology is...
Here is another one.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Republicans free up regulation and lower taxes, then the debt goes up, unemployment goes up, income inequality goes up, the number of tax payer goes down, yet all Republicans do it just ignore the facts. It seems pretty stupid to know, thus ignore, these facts and then want less regulation and lower taxes, and that is what the Republicans want.

Dapper's chart shows high taxes = high employment as much as this chart shows a lack of pirates = global warming.

What it does show is that the "Job Creator" 🤬 is just that, 🤬. It does show lower taxes does not equal lower unemployment, what Republicans (and Libertarians too apparently) refuse to understand.

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes. I am really a Republican, I'm just waiting for something that shows Rep ideology actually works. Help me!

 

[Danoff]

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes. I am really a Republican, I'm just waiting for something that shows Rep ideology actually works. Help me!

This is about as simple as I can make it.

The Berlin Wall

Which direction were the guns aimed? Which direction were people desperate to cross the wall? Which side had financial prosperity? Why did that side have financial prosperity?

Q.E.D.

 

[Dapper]

This is about as simple as I can make it.

The Berlin Wall

What does communism have to do with the US?

And writing QED after 4 questions is very funny and too ironic.

Why did that side have financial prosperity?

I see you are still ignoring all of the US statistics being shown to you.
Lower taxes and less regulation- anti-communist ideology- resulted in less financial prosperity in the US.

So besides a picture from a different culture, in a different time period, you have nothing that shows your economic beliefs are based on anything substantial.

 

[DK]

What does communism have to do with the US?

Two words: Cold War.

 

[Danoff]

What does communism have to do with the US?

Economics applies to other nations as well.

 

[Dapper]

Economics applies to other nations as well.

But the US is not communist. I am sure if the government took control of everything in 1/2 of the US, most people would want in the other side.

 

[Danoff]

But the US is not communist.

Excellent observation. Communism didn't fail because it was called "communism" though, it failed for specific economic reasons.

 

[Dapper]

Excellent observation.

Right, but you aren't observing, just ignoring relevant facts.

I see you are still ignoring all of the US statistics being shown to you.
Lower taxes and less regulation- anti-communist ideology- resulted in less financial prosperity in the US.

 

[Danoff]

Right, you aren't observing, just ignoring relevant facts.

I had already responded to you by the time you posted this:

I see you are still ignoring all of the US statistics being shown to you.
Lower taxes and less regulation- anti-communist ideology- resulted in less financial prosperity in the US.

I'll note that this responds to nothing. You asked me a direct question and I answered it.

You have nothing to refute it with.