Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's Biggest Crime Is "Putting 'It' On The Table"? Really? (458 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  they are reading your mind (14+ / 0-)

    just like they do President Obama's.  

    •  Its interest how much you and other deniers (16+ / 0-)

      rely on fantasies about others just like the conservatives do to make your arguments.

      For example, his statements arei n the plain text, and all Richard did was read the text and understand the  logical implications of that language.

      If you believe this requires "reading one's mind" then all logic requires it.

      The same goes for Preisent Obama.

      As I told anonther whos aid something like your post, if reading the circumstantial evidence to be consistent with one argument (that the President is acting to cut entitlements and that htis will hurt African Americans, the poor, Latinos, etc) is "reading minds" then the entirety of the way we prove the intent of parties in litigation in the US and other countries is also "reading minds" since it relies on precisely the same approach of circumstantial evidence tied to arguments of reason.

      Your argument, on the other hand, relies strictly on denial. Which is not an argument at all. Its assertion. Which is circular logic without more than the thesis. Here the thesis being you deny the circumstantial evidence, and then say your thesis is right.

      As Richard above knows, I spent the last few months debating conservatives about why they should convert to progressive values.

      One of the lesson from that is that I realized the gap between me and them was that they were deniers as well.

      So I am really familiar with the structure of conseervative argument styles at this point.

      The substantive evidence whether it was skewing the polls or any other issue was to deny deny deny. And then assert without sufficient evidence to back it up. I am not suggesting you ae conserevative. I am suggeting the approach is identical.

      •  please stop with the denier bs - it's making my (4+ / 0-)

        blood pressure spike and, for the first time, it's making my hand hurt!

        please don't use insulting labels - instead why not discuss the issue!

        i'm going offline now....  damnit.

      •  Question for you: (6+ / 0-)

        If the president is so intent on cutting entitlements, the easiest way to do that would have been to include them in the sequestration. Why were they protected (other than a 2% capped cut to medicare providers)?

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by NLinStPaul on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:29:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not all evidence is goingto be consistent (6+ / 0-)

          at first.

          What you do is look at the weight. In other words, one interpretation of the piece of info you present is what you say, but there are others. And then you look at all other evidence that's present to see what all the evidence is consistent with.

          Am i certain? No. Do I think its more probable than not that the President has no qualms about cutting SS and other entitlements, I thi nk there is sufficient evidence of that position. I don't think your  evidence rebutts this because that evidence can be seen either as he was against it or he was waiting to see when it would become politically feasible or he was worried about a different political reality in the moment or any  number of a numbere of other arguments that can be asserted using the same point in the context of other evidence.

        •  By the way (7+ / 0-)

          Please note what I am doing here. I am not making an argument that relies on my belief alone. I am making one based on what is all the evidence consistent with? There is ar eason why most cases are won through this approach. Its because its harder to rebut.

          •  I was simply giving you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            a piece of actual evidence to deal with.

            From what I've seen so far, you've talked about evidence alot, but haven't actually provided any.

            So I'll give you an assist. Here is the kind of thing Obama has actually said about SS.

            While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that’s growing older.  As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations.  But we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.  And it can be done.

            Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by NLinStPaul on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 11:14:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually I mentioned (4+ / 0-)

              David Mixer long list of evidence each of them a separate circumstance both before he won in 2008 after and during the period you speak and after that

              That what I mean by consistent.

              The difference is you are trying to seize on one moment to explain what a situation means.

              The problem your positon has is there isn't just  the one moment.

              Evidence or any data point is only as valuable as it is placed into a wider understanding to devlop pattern

              Without it , its just info.

              It would be like the Skew the Pollster relying on one data point to build their case that htey are right. Its a false way to argue

              But you don't seem to understand that from your response since. What I am talking about is, as Iw as just told, a pretty sophisticated form of analysis. The way that courts go about analyzing facts in a case to determine what is happening.

              What you did was say - to give one example- in a case - well I have what seems to be one counter fact, and that proves that I m right. Except it doesn't if looked in a wider context.

              You can of course continue to pretend I didn't address your point, and I suspect yu will since you did this time, but the fact I did. I explained how evidence works to build a consistent case with that evidence, that your point can be read manyw ay and even your quote, doesn't help your case.

              In fact, it hurts since the argument being made is a false one and has is not  relevant to this particular instance of why he's bringing it into the conversation of the current battle if the quote were true.

              Do you not see the lack of reasoning you are using here as far as  complex analysis verus what you are doing? Searching arround for confirmation rather than for what is a consistent pattern that develops despit the circumstances?

              Across the circumstances the pattenr forms and that's why circumstantial evidence leads to so many lose or won cases. Its harder to rebut and certain requires more than you are doing here which is focusing on just one, and only using your interpretation of that one, and then linking an argument that doesn't help you substanatively

              •  DailyKos has a wide diverse group of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Characters. DU has become more of a cheerleading site for the President. You can easily go over there rather than chiding people here for cherishing and defending  the obvious - the ideals which so many Democratic leaders and politicians established from the time period of the early thirties to the seventies.

                And don't forget - those ideals were established with the blood of people who had died in the Haymarket riots, who had died during worker and labor union strikes, and who had been raped and killed in prison during the Suffragette era demands for women's equality. And then there were the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties. Along with that movement was the Peace Movement. All that activity  calls for those of us  who remember those ideals to fight to see that they are re-installed.

                This Administration has not been a friend of environmental ideals. For what I mean by that: witness the Obama Administration stance on the BP oil disaster. And the EPA under Obama shutting down the air monitoring stations, so no one got any truth about radiation blanketing the country after the Fulushima holocaust. Then consider how it was the State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, who asked that the Keystone XL Pipeline be allowed to destroy the aq2uifers of people  living in fourteen States in the USA!

                And don't even get me started on how Obama sold people out by installing rat bastard Getihner as the Secretary of Treasury. This guy should have been indicted for RICO violations when he was the head of the NY Fed - instead he gets to collude with re-appointed Bernanke to offer the Main Street wealth to the Elite of the Financial World.

                Obama secured a second term ONLY because so many people were forced to hold their noses and vote for him rather than let the women-hating Republicans get in. But he should realize that fact and quit colluding with the Elite's agenda of bringing about the extinction of America's middle class.

                Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

                by Truedelphi on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 01:03:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  By th eway, I would love to have a (4+ / 0-)

              serious conversation with someone who supportst he president who is capable of analyzing the situation from the many statements he has made, if you want to do that - great. If you want to merely ignore al lhe other evidence while focusing on your interpretation fo this piece and his rhetoric related to this peice then I am not interested inthat exhcange because its not a real one. Its just you trying to ignore or deny all the other evidence without much else to back it up over time considering the different circumstanced in which he has consistent said this regardless of his statement here and you would also have to bring some factual analysis about whether even in that one isntance was his statement factually true? You don't say. You accept it is because he gave it. What does "put at risk me" when he's willing to accept something that cuts benefits?

              •  why are you making this about the president (0+ / 0-)

                instead if the ussues?  this is counter-productive!

              •  What I find completely amusing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                is that you are using all of these jumbled words and arguments in an attempt to rebut what you think is my argument when I haven't even made one.

                So far all I've done is ask you a question and then provide some evidence that actually bolsters your argument - that PBO wants to make changes to SS. I'm sorry, but no one who has ever paid much attention to what the president has said would deny that.

                The reason I only provided one quote is that it would take me most of the day to track down every time he's said that.

                As a matter of fact, when you broaden the conversation to include Medicare and Medicaid - he's done more than talk about changes - he's made some pretty big ones.

                So you can continue arguing with some phantom that doesn't exist. Or you can accept the fact that we all agree that PBO wants to make changes to entitlements. The only real question on the table is...what changes?

                Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

                by NLinStPaul on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 12:36:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well again you are doing the asseertion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:


                  I am not going to debate your assertions.

                  I answered your question and evidence, but you don't like the answer so you keep repeating yourself hoping no one will notice that you are in fact pretending not to have gotten an answer.

                  Nothing more I can say here because at this point I don't believe you are engaging in a good faith exchange. to do that, you would have to sop pretending you didn't get an answer when in fac tyou did.

                  I am not arguing a phantom. I am making the same point that anyone grounded in reason makes "what's the consistent argument:

                  You on the other hand are arguing in sophistry. I am right because I cite one thing that 's factual. The problem: You provide no context for it in relationship to all the other facts.

                  You can continue to pretend that doesn't matter. But you aren't convincing.

                •  Also, I don't find you amusing (0+ / 0-)

                  We already live in age of anti-reason as it is under the push by the GOP

                  We certainly don't need our own version of it. If can't understand a basic point about using facts to find consistency of what is more probable than not, then you aren't interested in reason. Its not amusing that you aren't. It is what it is. And after this I Will move on, but amsuing doesn't come to mind.

                  •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    So even though I agree with you that PBO wants to change entitlements, you continue with this nonsense?

                    You want the facts? Let me spell them out one more time:

                    * PBO has made HUGE changes to Medicare and Medicaid
                    * PBO has been saying for a long time that he supports changes to SS

                    What the hell it is that you're arguing about in your head is a complete mystery known only to you.

                    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

                    by NLinStPaul on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 01:00:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am going to cut this off (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I don't find exchange with you fruitful

                      The conversation as per the diary is about changes that will result in cuts to benefits and since you have added whether there's cuts are necessary.

                      Now you are increasingly trying to change the subject matte rof discussion and this is not going to go anywhere precisely for the reason I stated before: You aren't a good faith actor.

                      That means that the best I can do is to avoid an exchange with you because its not going to produce any reall discussion.

                      Good luck.

            •  Apparently he didn't mean what he said then. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              But we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations...
              Adopting the chained CPI does everything he said he wouldn't do.
        •  The sequestration applies to the budget. (8+ / 0-)

          Social Security and Medicare are operated out of separate trust funds and thus not budget items. Any changes to them require separate legislation.

      •  confirmational bias (0+ / 0-)

        look it up.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site