Liberal Activist Attacked by Zealous Conservative

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Its over. With a week to go even the B. knows it.

The question is will the sweeping probationary change give Obama the reason to change his agenda, or will a more permanant change be required?

It's ironic that all Obama has done is basically continue programs you guys started. The stimulus? Bush's idea. The war? Bush's idea. Healthcare? They privatized it remember...so basically your idea. If anyone should be pissed it's us Dems.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

It's ironic that all Obama has done is basically continue programs you guys started. The stimulus? Bush's idea. The war? Bush's idea. Healthcare? They privatized it remember...so basically your idea. If anyone should be pissed it's us Dems.

The healthcare bill is almost a carbon copy of the one the R's floated in response to "Hillarycare"

And you're right. I am pissed, and thus that's why I can;t call myself a Dem. They're not the party that's going to get real change done.

Originally Posted by gimpy117

It's ironic that all Obama has done is basically continue programs you guys started.

A money influx from a private entity, which the FED is, is not the same as plunging all tax payers into the fire that the Dems and Obama has done.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

A money influx from a private entity, which the FED is, is not the same as plunging all tax payers into the fire that the Dems and Obama has done.

You're wrong. The original $700 bn bailout was taxpayer money. It came from the Treasury. Get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...on_Act_of_2008

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You're wrong. The original $700 bn bailout was taxpayer money. It came from the Treasury. Get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...on_Act_of_2008

But you supported it then. Didn't you. See the hipocracy in work. I knew I would catch some one. mookiemookie...its you.

[tater]

Guy was apparently a union guy.

Quick google.

[tater]

The actual bailouts are arguable in both directions. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the derivative problems, etc.

The "stimulus" OTOH, was pure political payback. Nothing more. It was inexcusable.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Guy was apparently a union guy.

Quick google.

I forgot about that one. Guess with that and the St Louis incident and the Tampa incident makes it a bonafide trend doesn't it?

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

I forgot about that one. Guess with that and the St Louis incident and the Tampa incident makes it a bonafide trend doesn't it?

If I were the type to generalize based on anecdote, then yeah. I don't apply the gimpy/mookie standard, though. I think violence has been isolated enough that it's on par with the background of violence (no data, just a gut feeling).

People seem to forget that if X% of the population at large are *******s, then X% of any given group are also likely to be *******s.

A better example of systemic violence or vandalism (a friend of mine describes vandalism as "a hate crime against civilization") might be the G-7 protests. Any time there is some global economic meeting, the nuts come out of the woodwork to protest "globalization" and light stuff on fire, break windows, etc. It virtually always happens.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

I think violence has been isolated enough that it's on par with the background of violence (no data, just a gut feeling).

For the record I agree with that feeling as well.

[krashkart]

It's certainly not as bad as it could be; nobody has been CS'd, blasted with water cannons, or shot.

Anyway, just heard on the news that Mr. Profitt was dropped as a campaign volunteer.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

If I were the type to generalize based on anecdote, then yeah. I don't apply the gimpy/mookie standard, though. I think violence has been isolated enough that it's on par with the background of violence (no data, just a gut feeling).

isn't a "gut feeling" anecdote?

I guess it's okay when you do it, because it fits your agenda which is obviously right, and everything else is anecdote.

oh and by the way...anything said about such large issues as the tea party, or democrats or republicans can be either "too general" or two specific. Unless I sit down and chronicle an account of all the silly political signs, or violence since 2001, you can just say "ohh well thats only a couple signs its generalizing" But if i say on the other hand: "here's two signs that prove my point" you would say "oh well thats too specific".

Ohh! can i play too?...i can pretend to be Descartes and challenge everything until i get to something that cannot be denied as untruth or anecdote!

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

isn't a "gut feeling" anecdote?

oh and by the way...anything said about such large issues as the tea party, or democrats or republicans can be either "too general" or two specific. Unless I sit down and chronicle an account of all the silly political signs, or violence since 2001, you can just say "ohh well thats only a couple signs its generalizing" But if i say on the other hand: "here's two signs that prove my point" you would say "oh well thats too specific".

I said it was a gut feeling. I didn't say "X is violent." My caveat implicitly stated that the statement was not to be taken too seriously. Still we'd have heard of much more if it was common. The idea that is is likely on par with background violence is in fact the base assumption until proved otherwise.

In general, groups roughly mimic the society at large. So any claim that a group is particularly violent needs to demonstrate they are more violent than society at large. Not that they have a violence >0, but that they have a violence > the norm.

The burden of proof is on YOU. I think they likely mimic society at large.

[Aramike]

Hmmm ... let's see, the people who generally lean conservative all condemn the attack mentioned in this topic and have all alluded to their belief that extremism exists on both sides but is fringe and not mainstream in both cases.

The people who generally lean liberal tend to think that this is the status quo of mainstream conservatism and choose to completely ignore the extremism from their side because they claim it's only fringe.

I find it interesting that the moderate voices are the former while the latter is complaining about extremism.