I, for one, welcome our new more fast-acting, politically-pointed Simpsons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Disclaimer
MRML is a blog about the devestating effects of culture: music, politics, comics plus etc. blah blah blah. At times MRML will post fine, unpurchasable three-chord obscurica (punk, pop-punk, new wave, mod, power-pop, gospel, reggae, hardcore, rockabilly, folk, country...whatever.) - - - - - - "The otherwise unavailable files in this blog are posted for a limited time and are intended for educational, non-commercial use. These files were transcribed from what are believed to be out-of-print sources. If you are aware of any of these items being readily available from commercial sources, or if any of these files infringe upon rights that you hold, please notify us so that we can quickly remove the referenced items immediately." - - - SUPPORT THE ARTISTS - BUY MUSIC!
Contact
If you have any questions or music to donate you can contact me at musicruinedmylife (at) gmail (dot) com
Re: Re-Ups
MRML does not plan to restore all of the content lost in The Great Mediafire Gutting of 2012. Polite requests may be made in the appropriate section, regular commenters will get priority.
Music Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mondo De Muebles 202410 months ago
-
-
PPA1 year ago
-
-
-
-
Blackjack Tournament2 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Even Hitler...5 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Eighties Covers Redux!7 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
You No Longer Need to Beware of the Blog9 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.png)
Please stick to music.
ReplyDeleteNO NONE can survive financially if you continue to spend more money than you take in. Doesn't work for MC Hammer & it won't work for our government.
The USA should've had a Balanced Budget Amendment 30 years ago.
Again: "tax the rich"...."till there are no rich no more" is lousy economic policy.
It was recently stated that 109 million working Americans support approximately 80 million "government workers & entitlement entities". Clearly, that's wrong
"The USA should've had a Balanced Budget Amendment 30 years ago."
DeleteYeah, Reagan was such a loser. He ran up more debt than all the previous presidents in American history.
Conservatives seem to want to return to the "good old days" like we had back in the 50's. Do you know what the tax rates on "the rich" were back in the 1950's? Didn't have much government debt back then as I recall. It took Ronnie Raygun and the Republicans to start that ball rolling.
Let's do some quick math.
DeleteMitt Romney paid 13.9% income tax on $22.7 million income.
That's $3,155,300, leaving him with $19,544,700.
Suppose he paid a rate of 20%.
That would have been $4,540,000 or $1,384,700 more.
He'd be left with $18,160,000.
Is Mitt Romney "rich no more"?
$1,000,000 income…
-13.9% tax = $861,000
-20% tax = $800,000
Wealthy no more? As I've said here before, Evil Rev, just have the rich pay their fair share. They'll still be rich, or at least wealthy. They got a tax break from GW Bush, no one said it would be lifetime.
Jerry Lee
DeleteEvil Rev comments and runs but thanks for giving some facts for everyone else to chew on.
"Please stick to music".
ReplyDeleteIt's my blog, I'll write about whatever the HELL I want.
Since political posts get more comments, people like yourself encourage them!
How many comments have you left on any of my music posts?
Instead you just write " "tax the rich"...."till there are no rich no more" is lousy economic policy" every single fucking time. Repeating an idea almost nobody subscribes to doesn't make it any less of a straw-man!
But since you never read almost anything written in the main post or the comments, you'll just keep leaving these comment and keep encouraging, in your own bitter, closed-minded way, more off the same.
What a conformist comment;
ReplyDelete"Repeating an idea almost nobody subscribes to doesn't make it any less of a straw-man"
As a longtime Anarchist my eyes are now wide open to the conformity of the Left. Seriously, modern-day Conservatives could never pull off the overwhelming groupthink that is embedded in our culture and institutions...
Whatever you propagandize about the fiscal cliff, the truth remains that President Downgrade has led us here. He needs you to help him blame someone else (President Bush, Boehner or Reagan will suffice).
I like the way you insult me, calling me a 'conformist' bu then make no attempt to deal with the quote you used from me. Classy.
DeleteAnd what kind of 'longtime anarchist' thinks that only 'modern-day Conservatives" avoid 'groupthink'? Based on the available evidence you sound like a Libertarian Republican.
I 'propagandized' about the fiscal cliff? I showed you a cartoon. You need to bring your rhetoric down a few notches.
"President Downgrade" maybe I should've called you a Fox Republican.
President Obama didn't lead us "here". Read all about it, conservative propaganda conformist/anarchist: http://tinyurl.com/ces9htg
ReplyDeleteGood link.
DeleteThank you for that article. Everyone should read it to see how "bandwagon" propaganda works. Its almost funny that the editorial you linked uses the same technique your "buddy" Jeffen used.
ReplyDeleteIt starts off with a survey stating that more people will blame Republicans in Congress for the failure of "fiscal cliff" talks than our dear Obama. Then it immediately mentions the election, "do elections matter any more?"
So any "nonconformist" will say well, "everyone else supports Obama, I'd better too."
Then it implies that if we dont support everything Obama wants to do and believe everything Obama wants us to believe, then we are being undemocratic because (a slim) majority voted for him.
The rest of the editorial goes on to extensively use red-herring and half-truth arguments... ignoring that it was massive federal spending (which Obama asked for), that lead to this problem.
This is pure Animal Farm...
(And yes Bush spent a lot too, but Obama has spent more in 4 years, than Bush spent in 8. So please dont bother with any strawman arguments.)
Ever hear about the pot calling the kettle black? You haven't made one comment that wasn't made against Obama by conservatives in the last several years. Are you and Evil Rev a tag team? Next you'll to us that Fox "News" is unbiased...
DeleteWell, Anonymous, it looks like Forbes disagrees with your assessment that Obama has already spent more than GWB. In fact, they call our reelected President "The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower". Now please don't bother with any "Liberal Media" arguments. :-)
Deletehttp://tinyurl.com/c6b2acy
My dear Jerry Lee...
ReplyDeleteRather than just attacking me, you should spend some time to challenge the substance of my arguments.
Its your choice if you want to resort to Reductio ad Hitlerum and denounce me as a supporter of Conservatives... but I pray for the day when Obama is no longer exempt from criticism thanks to such fallacies...
Hey, I didnt see that but you did follow up after your "Evil Rev" attack comment with another comment that directly addressed my arguments. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteA lot of people would like to believe that Obama is this great guy who is the "smallest govt spender since Eisenhower" and they will accept anything to believe that...
Propaganda relies on misinformation and we have a fine example here.
If Obama was truly the spendthrift that your article suggests, then how could our credit rating be downgraded due to our deficit? Why are we facing such a historic deficit problem?
So you should ask, what is "annualized growth of federal spending"? Because that is the measurement used in your article to back the claim that Obama is not a big spender!
Here is the kicker, Obama has flat-lined govt spending at historic highs. He simply has not fluctuated the amount of spending from year to year. It stays flatline at a ridiculous high rate of spending. This is deliberate misinformation!
Do you get it? Do you understand how propaganda works?
"how could our credit rating be downgraded due to our deficit?"
DeletePerhaps you should read the reason the people who did the downgrade gave for doing so. Have someone help you with big words like "political brinkmanship".
"Why are we facing such a historic deficit problem?"
What was the deficit the last fiscal year George Bush was in office? What was the deficit in the last fiscal year?
Who said deficits don't matter?
How many times was the debt ceiling raised when George Bush was in office?
Why wasn't the Tea Yahoo Party complaining then?
Anonymous/anarchist:
Delete"your "Evil Rev" attack comment"
I disagree. It's a reasoned response to his comments.
"Propaganda relies on misinformation and we have a fine example here."
I disagree. The Forbes article is a presentation of factual, statistical information. They gathered information from Marketwatch, which is published by the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News Channel. No "liberal media" bias here!
"how could our credit rating be downgraded due to our deficit?"
Simple. As the Philadelphia Daily News editorial said, in the link I provided above: "When Standard and Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ last year, it was in large part because of the alarming dysfunction of a political system that threatens catastrophe in place of debating policy, and in which the expressed will of the people counts for little."
"Why are we facing such a historic deficit problem?"
From the same editorial: "Republicans brought the nation to the brink of default, effectively blackmailing Obama to make a deal or risk a possible global meltdown. The deal was the mix of tax increases and mandatory across-the-board cuts to government programs due to take effect on Jan. 2 - what's known as the "fiscal cliff." Except, of course, no one intended these cuts to happen, either. Rather, they were to be used as leverage to hold the economy hostage as part of yet another crisis to force other, deeper spending and tax cuts. Which is where we are now."
Do you see how the latter two are related? Do you get it?
Here's the link again, for anyone who missed it:
http://tinyurl.com/ces9htg
If you have any factual information to counteract the statistics presented by Forbes, Marketwatch/Wall Street Journal, and the Congressional Budget Office, please present it here. I'd like to read it, and I think my "buddy" jeffen might too. Thank you!
Give 'em Hell, Jerry Lee!
DeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteYou dont understand my comment. I dont argue with the numbers, I argue with the context of how they are falsely used. Please reread what I wrote.
If you still dont understand then read next comment below. It exposes a similar act of misinformation. Context is everything...
Lets be clear. Obama is the one who is blackmailing. He feels that he has a mandate. His spokesman even said that he is willing to go over the cliff if Republicans insist on making Obamacare a part of the deal.
But lets put this into perspective. Our debt crisis is Obama's responsibilty, he owns $6 trillion dollars of it. When Bush became President the total US debt was only $5 trillion. (When it was Bush's responsibilty, he irresponsibly increased our debt by 4.3 trillion).
Obama's campaign constantly hammered the message that he needs your help to finish the job he started. Now he needs your to help him pass the buck.
I was accused in this thread of buying into Conservative propaganda… however, you guys are buying into total lies.
ReplyDeleteI’ve already shown the dirty trick utilizing “annualized growth of federal spending” to falsely paint Obama as the “smallest govt spender since Eisenhower”…
Now I have been asked, “What was the deficit the last fiscal year George Bush was in office? What was the deficit in the last fiscal year? Who said deficits don't matter?” (A twist on Obama’s “words matter” speech)
I was asked these questions because the budget deficit is also used by Obama Apologists as an annualized benchmark to falsely paint Obama as some sort of crusader for fiscal responsibility!!!
The budget deficit has gone down slightly from Bush’s last year in office, yet the national debt has soared during that same time. Obama has accumulated over $6 Trillion dollars in debt, increasing our debt from about $10 Trillion under Evil Bush to $16 Trillion (insert subliminal message here: hate Bush, blame Bush, love Obama)
Bush inherited a 5.7 Trillion debt and in 8 years increased it to 10 Trillion. This is a total increase of 4.3 Trillion vs Obama’s increase of 6 Trillion in 4 years… AS I WROTE EARLIER, OBAMA HAS OUTSPENT THE BUSH ADMIN IN 4 YEARS COMPARED TO BUSH’S 8 YEARS. The information is unfiltered from the US Treasury website so save your Fox News false flags:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
How is that possible if Obama has slightly decreased our budget deficit? In order to understand you should know that a ‘budget deficit’ is different than the ‘national debt’.
Lets say the national debt is $100 Trillion (that is how much money our federal government owes, including intragovernmental debt). If in 2012 the budget deficit is $10 Trillion the national debt will increase to $110 Trillion.
Lets say in 2013 the budget deficit is $5 Trillion, we cut the deficit in half from last year, but the national debt still goes up to $115 Trillion.
So Obama must rely on blaming the Republicans as the national debt grows and he tries to use irrelevant budget deficit data to distract from the point that he is continuing to add debt at an alarming rate. He can only get away with this because we desperately want to believe him.
And when Obama adds some government spending proposals to his “fiscal cliff” deal, we don’t even bat an eye… He thinks he can get away with anything. We hate Republicans so much that we must support him and President Downgrade flogs that horse as much as he can…
It was your association of me with Evil Rev that I didnt like. I dont know who that person is...
ReplyDeleteIt was your smarmy remark about my "buddy" jeffen that caused my response.
ReplyDeleteAlmost forgot about your first comment, what with all your rhetoric:
"Seriously, modern-day Conservatives could never pull off the overwhelming groupthink that is embedded in our culture and institutions... "
How else would you explain all those people who voted for Romney?
Sorry, that comment came off too strong. I didnt like the association, but I wasnt angry.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an important point to me...
Anyway, it appears that like North Koreans who are told that their country is not the paradise they believe it to be... Americans cannot understand the significance of how strawman arguments are built around the misuse of real data.
The Democratic Party and their supporters use this data to compare how OBAMA STATISTICS are improved compared to other OBAMA STATISTICS and then claim it disproves any criticism of the Democrats handling of our debt crisis.
They actually claim that Obama is making progress even as he costs our country an average of over a trillion dollars of debt per year... A historic level of spending that even Bad Bush didn’t come near to. Now with Obamacare coming, the lid will be blown off the roof and Obama desperately needs to maneuver his enemies into a position of blame (He needs another Bush, the only effective political tactic he knows)…
This is a complete farce!!!
My last comment was not readable because I copied it from MS Word...
ReplyDeleteSorry, that comment came off too strong. I didnt like the association, but I wasnt angry.
This is not an important point to me...
Anyway, it appears that like North Koreans who are told that their country is not the paradise they believe it to be... Americans cannot understand the significance of how strawman arguments are built around the misuse of real data.
The Democratic Party and their supporters use this data to compare how OBAMA STATISTICS are improved compared to other OBAMA STATISTICS and then claim it disproves any criticism of the Democrats handling of our debt crisis.
They actually claim that Obama is making progress even as he costs our country an average of over a trillion dollars of debt per year... A historic level of spending that even Bad Bush didn’t come near to.
Now with Obamacare coming, the lid will be blown off the roof and Obama desperately needs to maneuver his enemies into a position of blame (He needs another Bush, the only effective political tactic he knows)…
This is a complete farce!!!
You sure love the hyperbole, don't you? Congress should quit stalling and vote 'yes' for Obama's budget proposal. The non-profit, independent Center For Budget and Policy Priorities says: "The budget also would stop the debt from rising as a share of the economy in 2014 and reduce it slightly as a share of GDP over the following eight years." Seems like you'd be happy with that.
Deletehttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3680
And I would suggest that Romney supporters cannot explain how anyone would vote for Obama... as much as vice-a-versa...
ReplyDeleteAs for Conservatives never being able to pull off overwhelming groupthink- Grover Norquist, anyone?
DeletePART 1: OK lets back up a minute. Jerry Lee has accused me of insulting him, but that is not true. I only attacked Jerry’s ARGUMENT by saying, “What a conformist comment”.
ReplyDeleteThat does not mean I think that Jerry Lee is a conformist. On the contrary, I suspect that he might have sympathy for non-conformist belief systems and that is why I felt that I should challenge him…
I didn’t expand further on his comment; “Repeating an idea almost nobody subscribes to doesn't make it any less of a straw-man", because I thought it was self-explanatory to say that this argument is conformist.
Since there is a need, I will elaborate. This is called bandwagon propaganda. If nobody subscribes to this idea, the implication is that nobody will want to be associated with it. That is a blatant appeal to conformity. There is an unstated assumption that if you subscribe to this idea you will be a ‘nobody’…
But please keep in mind that I have taken great care to avoid any personal attacks on anyone in this thread. I have been absolutely courteous to everyone here; thanking and apologizing to anyone who deserved it. You can reread my comments to see that there have been no personal attacks from me against any of you.
For the following reasons I sincerely believe that you gentlemen are blinded by your prejudices when reading my comments:
1) You accuse me of insulting you when I didn’t, but I sincerely regret any hard feelings.
2) You continually use RHETORIC to hold Fox News and Republicanism over my head, despite the fact that I have backed my claims with raw data from the US Treasury Dept. I find this tiresome and quite frankly childish… however, I have been willing to drop the subject.
3) Despite my repeated explanations you guys continue to insist that I am refuting the facts in the Obama/Eisenhower article, but I am not.
This does not mean that you are bad people. Please allow me to explain further and I hope you can read this with an open mind. It is a courtesy that I work hard to provide for you.
Link to Obama/Eisenhower article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
In order to reveal how the propaganda of the Obama/Eisenhower article works, let’s imagine the following scenario. Barry Widen is the manager of a major league baseball team, The Washington Deficits. In the past five seasons the team has finished in last place.
After the 2008 season the manager, Jorge Mush, was replaced by Widen.
Here are the stats for the Deficits during the last five seasons:
2008 - Last Place, W67 L95, PCT = .414
2009 - Last Place, W64 L98, PCT = .395
2010 - Last Place, W68 L94, PCT = .420
2011 - Last Place, W67 L95, PCT = .414
2012 - Last Place, W72 L90, PCT = .444
Dick Under is a sports writer who publishes an article entitled, “Washington Deficits have best record in baseball since Stengel’s Squad in the glory days of the Washington Deficits”. He proudly boasts that his data was compiled from the MLB’s website.
This journalist includes a chart of annualized growth of losses. It only shows the losses. The Deficits went from 98 to 90 losses. That is an improvement, but the Washington Deficits still finished last place and their record still sucks. The data is correct, but it is used out of context.
The above scenario has only been included to show that it is possible to misrepresent accurate data.
(continued below)
First of all you're confusing my statement with Jerry Lee's, which is an attribution error.
Delete'That is a blatant appeal to conformity. There is an unstated assumption that if you subscribe to this idea you will be a ‘nobody’…?
WHAT??????????????????????????????
I told Evil Rev' that his "tax the rich".... till there are no rich no more ' policy is a straw-man argument because no one involved in this fiscal cliff debate (or anyone outside of maybe North Korea) is advocating for this policy.
If you are seeking to elevate the debate here, which is not an unreasonable goal, maybe read everyone's comments in their entirety, remember who is who and try to keep in mind that you can't try to call your own insults 'challenging' and then when everybody responds say they are 'attacking you'.
PART 2: So let’s fast forward to the real record of the Washington Deficits… This is data is taken directly from the White House. It lists total federal spending in “current dollars” (actually 2005):
ReplyDeleteDollar amounts in Billions
1961 - 648.5
1962 - 707.0
1963 - 705.0
2008 - 2,702.3
2009 - 3,172.2
2010 - 3,066.7
2011 - 3,341.3 (estimated)
2012 - 3,209.4 (estimated)
(Chart on Page 26)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
The stats from the early 60s are from the years of the Kennedy Administration and all numbers are adjusted for inflation in 2005 dollars. Of course, President Kennedy succeeded Eisenhower in the Oval Office. This leads us back to Rick Ungar’s article entitled, “Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?”…
So how is 3 trillion dollars less than 700 billion? We are comparing apples to apples as much as we can here, with raw unfiltered data provided by the White House!!!
Gentlemen you have been lied to… I am very sorry, but that is the world of propaganda.
Now it is almost 4am in the morning. I have to wake up soon and I will surely be hurting when I do.
Please accept that I am making a big effort to accommodate you in a civil manner. I hope that you will take the time to examine my independent research with an open mind. There is no attempt to deceive and I am not resorting to harsh rhetoric. I have gone to great lengths to be sincere. The small amount of humor is merely included to make your reading more enjoyable…
Good night
I just got in after a double shift, and I have another 4AM wake up call to drive 2 hours to a job in the Village tomorrow (that's the good news) and I only had time to skim your comments.
DeleteHere's a brief article by MarketWatch, a publication of the Wall Street Journal, which provides links to the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, to show that the "Obama Spending Binge Never Happened".
Using another baseball analogy, the article says: "The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations."
I don't see any lies or propaganda here: http://tinyurl.com/c3h6dw3
I checked the tables at the link you provided, and I see a less than 10% increase in Outlays from 2011 to 2016. I also see a dramatic REDUCTION of the Deficit of about 60%! If things continue that way, we just might return to the economic glory years of Bill Clinton, who left office with a surplus!
Congratulations on your job in the Village.
ReplyDeleteSince you didn’t have time to really read my comment and you still cant see how Ungar and Nutting are lying, I will direct you to the point…
If Obama is “the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower”, then why did Obama spend 4Xs as much as Kennedy did? The spending amounts for both Presidents are listed below in 2005 dollars, adjusted for inflation (and taken from data provided by the White House)…
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING
Year 1- Kennedy, 1961 = 648.5 billion
Year 1- Obama, 2009 = 3,066.7 trillion
Year 2- Kennedy, 1962 = 705.0 billion
Year 2- Obama, 2011 = 3,341.3 trillion (estimated)
Year 3- Kennedy, 1962 = 707.0 billion
Year 3- Obama, 2012 = 3,209.4 trillion (estimated)
I could understand it if Ungar and Nutter overlooked just Kennedy, but the story is the same for each President. Obama has spent more than every other President since Eisenhower. Its right there in black n white on the President’s own website.
The funny thing about deficits is that you can reduce them and still accumulate debt. Americans have been misled into believing that a deficit is the same as debt. Words certainly do matter. Regardless, even the Obama Administration is not as optimistic as you. They predict that in 2016 the debt will go up to $20 trillion from the current $16 trillion.
Something is fishy about Ungar and Nutter’s conclusions…
...then why not write a rebuttal to Unger and Nutter's articles? I'm sure Forbes and the Wall Street Journal would both be interested in seeing that their writers are liars.
DeleteDo they have punk rock blogs too?
ReplyDeleteI am curious though, do you really believe that Obama spent less than Kennedy?
The articles I provided discuss the percentage of spending GROWTH, not actual dollars spent, which is your point. Like any propagandist, you choose the facts that support your viewpoints.
DeletePERCENTAGE should be in caps, not growth.
DeleteI'm sorry, that is not fair because I dont want to trick you. Please reconsider... I only chose the facts that would support the statement, Obama is “the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower"...
ReplyDeleteThat statement is a quote and the title of the article. It does not mention "percentage" or "growth"... Ungar makes a clear statement presenting something as the truth. You can't have a better example of cheap propaganda.
I have shown that Obama has spent more than Kennedy and if you'd like I can go down the list for each or any presdident since then.
And even the Obama Administration's own data shows that this Administration continues to add DEBT at an alarming rate... $20 trillion in debt by 2016 is an amazing amount of money and like any estimate it is probably short of what it will really be.
My apologies for any bad feelings. I am sincere...
Rick Ungar's article for Forbes (and Rex Nutting's For MarketWatch) has a "percentage" figure accompanying each dollar figure in the text. I can see where the chart might be misinterpreted, they probably should have had a "%" after each number. You might want to go to page 2, where Rick Ungar responds to reader's comments.
DeleteYou wrote: "It does not mention "percentage" or "growth".
Read the four bulleted sentences: "spending fell 1.8%" "spending rose 4.3%" "spending is set to rise 0.7%" "spending is scheduled to fall 1.3%". How did you miss these??
You wrote: "Obama has spent more than Kennedy".
Well, duh! Obama probably spent more on Bush's Iraq War than the entire total for Kennedy! He had to!
You're sincere, but you don't seem to have to ability or desire to interpret the figures or text you find. Of course there is spending, but where is the money going? Why is it being spent? You talk about "spending" as if every dollar was spent irresponsibly. Do some research before you accuse people of lying because they disagree with you.
I have no bad feelings, I'm done with this. Jeffen, thanks for the cartoon, it's pretty funny.
Thanks for fighting the good fight, and yeah it was a good Simpsons's clip, wasn't it?
DeleteHold on now, your reading comprehension is filtered through a bias-bifocal...
ReplyDeleteI clearly wrote, "That statement is a quote and the title of the article".
In that TITLE I didnt see any fine print along the lines of what you cited.
And you have not provided any data proving that Obama is “the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower" (the title of the article)... because Ungar’s statement is false.
I’m sorry, but I’m not the one who cant read or interpret figures as you accuse me… First off, I was the only person in this thread who did independent research of raw data and the only person who presented detailed statistics (which I compiled myself). Everyone else just linked articles and accepted those articles as holy gospel.
It takes a lot of work to find that data and compile it, while cross referencing to ensure its accuracy. For several nights I have gotten only a couple hours of sleep. I did that for you… and this is the lousy gratitude you show me.
Since you even admit that Obama spent more than Kennedy, you know that the statement, Obama is “the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower” is untrue…
You might never understand anything outside your dogma, but I at least I tried. Thank you for challenging me so that I actually got to look at the numbers and see for myself what George Orwell’s Animal Farm really looks like…
nice card stacking and transfer propaganda, anonymous. i like the emotional appeal too lol
Deleteforgot about the name calling, simplification, and assertion techniques. looks like jerry lee isn't the only one with a dogma lol.
DeleteThis is amazing....
ReplyDeleteEveryone in this thread knows that the statement, Obama is “the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower" is not true...
...but I continually get attacked for stating the truth. It is not a simplification to point out that Ungar's statement is not true.
The problem is that the commentators in this thread don't want to admit that they are willing to overlook this lie because it suits them politically...
Is the truth so unimportant and hateful that my integrity must be smeared?
You have no integrity to lose, you're just an anonymous person making political comments on a music blog. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean you're being "attacked". The people here have been very polite, especially based on what I've seen on other blogs. You've been the aggressor here, calling people liars, propagandists, President Downgrade, blackmailing.
DeleteThe Anonymous person above is right, you're as much a propagandist as the people you're criticizing. You've presented YOUR version of the "truth", conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
Remember early on, when you asked why our credit rating was downgraded, and someone suggested that you do some research on it? I doubt very much that you did, the answers wouldn't fit your line of propaganda, would they?
If you're so thin-skinned, don't get into political discussions on blogs, it's only a matter of time before you get attacked with extreme prejudice.
I see... so according to you; by calling Obama, "President Downgrade", I have somehow attacked the commentators in this thread. Sorry, please dont take it personally when I call your dear leader PRESIDENT DOWNGRADE...
ReplyDeleteIf it would help I would apologize for having my own opinion, but this burns you so much that you have to resort to a veiled threat by writing to me that, “…it's only a matter of time before you get attacked with extreme prejudice”.
And you Mr. Anonymous say that I am thin skinned… then here you are getting sooo upset over a political debate that you try to threaten me into silence.
That won’t work…
I don't take your childish remark about "President Downgrade" personally, why should I, I'm Canadian! It only shows me you haven't done any research on the reasons for the downgrade, and want to wrongly place the blame on only one person.
DeleteI never issued any threats, it was just a cautionary warning; you seemed to be very upset that people disagreed with your opinions. As I said, you'll be treated much worse somewhere else, that's the nature of unmoderated blogs and forums. I don't condone that behavior. The only person who can silence you here is the blog owner, and that's not me.
Interesting that you didn't disagree with my comment about you being a propagandist yourself...
You don't seem to be very skilled at reading comprehension; you've even confused jeffen with Jerry Lee. If you think Rick Unger is such a liar, why not go to his blog and tell him that? He takes and responds to comments on his articles. Please do so, I'd love to read his response.
So you say that the following statement that you made to me is not a threat. You wrote;
ReplyDelete"If you're so thin-skinned, don't get into political discussions on blogs, it's only a matter of time before you get attacked with extreme prejudice."
You really need a bit of self-reflection. A ‘veiled threat’ is a common propaganda technique (“A veiled threat is when you are threatened without the person actually saying threatening things, but it can be understood what they really mean”) You actually surpass the definition…
This brings us back to conformity and how it is often backed up with some sort of threat in order to enforce groupthink... This would be a threat that you will not belong to the crowd or a threat that you will be hurt in some way for standing out...
Nice going...
As soon as you make comments like these on other blogs, you'll see what I'm referring to. Good luck in your high school political science class!
DeleteWell, combining an insult with such a statement doesnt show sincerity, but I am not one to hold grudges...
ReplyDeleteCheers