Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Reply To Thread

Salaried, ExemptFollow

#177 Jan 16 2015 at 11:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But if you actually read the freaking thread,
I thought you'd never accuse!
gbaji wrote:
He was clearly asking where I got my opinion and/or analysis from, not what news sources I watch or read.
Jophiel wrote:
I'll ask again: Where are you getting your news from that you keep getting the facts wrong?
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I noticed you're still trying your best to avoid answering where it is you get your news from.
Looks pretty clear he wrote what he actually meant and now you're changing the wording and then insisting that's what he said all along, much like you're accusing Bijou of doing to you.


/shrug. Read the whole long exchange, starting a couple pages back. He wasn't actually asking me for numbers and data. He was asking me why I thought that the public would view the Dems worse than the GOP and I gave him my opinion as to why. And when I did this, he kept demanding that I tell him where I "got my news" from. So yeah, I assumed he was just using "news" as short hand for "opinion" and went with it. That's far from the most strange thing I've seen around here.


What's stunningly funny is that I was right with my "opinion". The Dems suffered terribly as a result of that shutdown. The public did perceive the Dems as the party making unrealistic demands with shutdown as the threatened consequence, and the GOP as the party trying to find a reasonable compromise. So while Obama did indeed still manage to win the 2012 election, the Dems as a whole lost big time from this conflict. So apparently, my absence of sources for my opinion trumps all of Joph's "facts".

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 9:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Jan 16 2015 at 11:36 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Read the whole long exchange, starting a couple pages back.
Did.
gbaji wrote:
He wasn't actually asking me for numbers and data. He was asking me why I thought that the public would view the Dems worse than the GOP and I gave him my opinion as to why.
No, he was quite clearly asking you where you were getting your data from that caused your wonky conclusions.

But hey, keep jumping between "quit changing what I said" to "he said something but what he really meant was."

Edited, Jan 17th 2015 12:37am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#179 Jan 16 2015 at 11:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I guess the other reason this annoys me is that it really does seem like a lot of posters prefer to respond to me by derailing the conversation or arguing some side point rather than actually addressing the argument I'm making.
Other posters prefer this to actually addressing the arguments you make because in two months you'll bring up the exact same arguments and pretend two months ago people didn't already address them.


And by "address" you mean "derailed it back then too", right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#180 Jan 16 2015 at 11:40 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And by "address" you mean "derailed it back then too", right?
Considering how often you repeat and ignore points, probably. You've used your "BUT TAXES HARM ME" argument at least four time in the last two years.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#181 Jan 16 2015 at 11:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Read the whole long exchange, starting a couple pages back.
Did.
gbaji wrote:
He wasn't actually asking me for numbers and data. He was asking me why I thought that the public would view the Dems worse than the GOP and I gave him my opinion as to why.
No, he was quite clearly asking you where you were getting your data from that caused your wonky conclusions.


No, he did what posters do to me all the time. I look at some data (often the data provided by that other poster), and I post an opinion about what the data means, and they respond by demanding that I provide a source for my "facts". But they don't want the raw data and numbers. What they really mean is they want a source of some expert they approve of saying exactly what I'm saying. I run into this all the freaking time.

The only "data" in the thread was the starting budget cut numbers in the house bill, and the ending figure in the Senate version, and no one was in disagreement over those numbers. The rest was entirely opinion about what this all meant with regards to a potential shut down. Here, let me repost my response when Joph once again demanded I produce "facts"

gbaji wrote:
You're the one who seems to think those things matter. I'm making a more general observation about how the public will view the issue. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how the house arrived at the bill they passed with its 61 Billion in cuts, or what various conversations members of both parties in the Senate have had along the way. If there is a shutdown, all the public will see is that the Dems refused to cut even a measly 61B from the budget. In the context of the massive spending they've done over the last few years and the massive amount the budget is already over, that's what's going to matter.


You do get that by *not* paying attention at all to what the wonks are saying and just looking at the situation at hand, I'm more likely to see the issue as the public will see it than you are, right? What I see is the Dems unwilling to compromise on what certainly appears to be a relatively tiny amount of money for things that arguably shouldn't be funded with taxpayer money in the first place. The rest of the back and forth which you seem to think is so important isn't really going to enter most people's thought process on this.


There's no source for this. It was my opinion. It was my analysis of how the public would respond if the Dems shut the government down. Joph kept demanding that I tell him what talking head I got this from, but I didn't get it from a talking head. It was my own analysis.

And I was right.

Quote:
But hey, keep jumping between "quit changing what I said" to "he said something but what he really meant was."


I would argue that he was the one changing what I said first by demanding sources and "facts" when I was only presenting my own opinion and analysis. He did it intentionally because he knows that I can't produce what he's demanding. It's a debating trick. Nothing more.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 10:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Jan 16 2015 at 11:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And by "address" you mean "derailed it back then too", right?
Considering how often you repeat and ignore points, probably. You've used your "BUT TAXES HARM ME" argument at least four time in the last two years.


Only four? I must be slipping.

Good example of the posters on this forum conveniently forgetting all the arguments I used last time we had the same exact discussion. Eventually, it'll resolve to "well, of course taxes harm those who pay them, I was talking about in net with the benefits", and I'll say "yeah, but to calculate that net, we have to start by acknowledging and calculating the harm caused by the act of paying taxes first", and the thread will end (sound familiar?). And then the next time I say "taxes harm those who pay them", the same exact people will insist that they don't. It's quite amusing actually.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Jan 17 2015 at 12:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I look at some data,
Which Joph asked you to divulge.
gbaji wrote:
and I post an opinion about what the data means
Mystery data you don't provide.
gbaji wrote:
and they respond by demanding that I provide a source for my "facts".
Are you expecting people to just take your word that your opinion is credible?
gbaji wrote:
But they don't want the raw data and numbers. What they really mean is they want a source of some expert they approve of saying exactly what I'm saying.
Which is a nice dance to excuse you from providing your source. Kind of rolls back to your accusing Bijou of what you're happy to do yourself.
gbaji wrote:
I run into this all the freaking time.
Probably because you try the same tactics "all the freaking time."
gbaji wrote:
Eventually, it'll resolve to "well, of course taxes harm those who pay them, I was talking about in net with the benefits", and I'll say "yeah, but to calculate that net, we have to start by acknowledging and calculating the harm caused by the act of paying taxes first", and the thread will end (sound familiar?).
By eventually, do you mean sometime in the future? Because that has never happened with any of your points. You just kind of wandered away last time, waited a few months, and brought up the same thing again. Or do you mean that people just kind of stopped paying attention to you and moved on? Because that does happen occasionally. Not because they finally bought what you're selling, but because they just got bored of the repetition.

Edited, Jan 17th 2015 1:22am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#184 Jan 17 2015 at 1:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
He wasn't actually asking me for numbers and data.

No, that was exactly what I was asking for because you continually throughout the thread got numbers wrong, got dates wrong and insisted that the GOP had presented things that were never presented. I was asking where you were getting these outlandishly wrong facts since they obviously weren't coming from any reasonable source. Funny that you need to put words in my mouth now and say what I "meant" to fit your own agenda.

Your agenda here, of course, being laughable backpedaling years later when you admitted that you were speaking out of total ignorance and kneejerk criticism to my remarks just because, well, you know why.

Quote:
And I was right.

You mean, aside from the fact that the GOP folded, accepted the $33bil compromise (that you laughed at and called liberal propaganda) and the GOP's poll numbers tanked as a result of the whole fiasco? Yeah, you were totally right. But then, you probably weren't aware of those things either since you don't get your news from anywhere Smiley: wink2

Edited, Jan 17th 2015 1:17am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Jan 17 2015 at 1:59 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji must be built like a bodybuilder moving all those goalposts.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#186 Jan 17 2015 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts

You mean, aside from the fact that the GOP folded, accepted the $33bil compromise (that you laughed at and called liberal propaganda) and the GOP's poll numbers tanked as a result of the whole fiasco?


It was just setting up the 2014 midterm win. Liberals like you can't comprehend the long game, I see. No wonder you lost.
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 228 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)