Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.cnn.com/...tion-plan/index.html


CNN has a bigger bullhorn than you do.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-results/

https://www.ipsos.com/...est-us-opinion-polls

It looks very close.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
ike wrote:
mattbk wrote:
trail wrote:
Tylertri wrote:

and yet amazingly we seem to need it in an inflationary environment at exactly the time

Inflationary effect is probably pretty weak, being phased in over 10 years, and having hard caps. Just speculation, haven't seen the CBO crew weigh in on possible effects.

Quote:
that the guy who is losing all his parties important demo's wants to give away free stuff in order to buy votes.

I don't know what "losing important demo's" means, but indeed it's very common for Presidential candidates to promise populist measures in election years, and this is a popular/populist measure. Certainly intentionally rolled out in an election year with political purpose. Vs. having pushed it the prior three years. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, though.

And the other major candidate is also rolling out popular/populist ideas in an election year...when he had 4 years to do it the prior time.

Fundamentally, elections are a form of popularity contest. So this isn't unexpected from either side.

Trump may have some crazy agendas, but slipping tax payer funded college post hoc is absolutely fucking bullshit from Biden. If you took a loan you pay it. If the government makes college tax payer funded then we have to pay it or vote out the people demanding it. But at least our tax money would be known ahead of time instead of stealing it to pay off loans people willingly took on in order to garner votes the party thought it didn't have otherwise. Bullshit.

There are two issues here, which ought to be separated.

1. Democratic process — is Biden depriving voters of the chance to weigh in on this? Biden campaigned on this in 2020. He won. Voters will have a chance to vote on him again.

2. Should government support for education be prospective rather than post hoc? I agree with you. This is a lousy way of addressing the issue. We should focus the debate on costs going forward, not giving relief to those who chose to take on the loans.

For point 2 a major aspect is what about parents that paid so their kids had no loans or lower loans. They weren't simply all rich. They may have saved much better and limited expenditures in order to save this fund or make payments. The kids with loans may have had parents that spent more lavishly on cars, vacations, etc. Paying off loans they knowingly took while these payments are not available to those who already paid off school and may have worked through school is simply ridiculously unfair. And it is taxpayer money.

I was in the reverse situation. I could have taken a job in college. Instead, I was so focused on extracurricular stuff that I took out some loans. My choice.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
Bone Idol wrote:
Nutella wrote:


Wrong again Matt. "18 year paid leave" "4 hour work week" etc. are just simplistic strawmen......but you knew that so you now resort to your usual insults and deflection.

Why shouldn't America have paid family leave like the rest of the world? Try to answer with specifics, not deflection, insults, and strawmen.


I think his reasoning was clear, if false.

Americans are like reckless children who would eat chocolate for every meal. They can't be trusted to make grown up decisions in the way that "Europeans" (i.e. non-Americans) can.

Clarification, it's other Americans. Seemingly one of the great fears of many conservatives is someone else will get something for free (in their view).

One of the most radicalizing things I have learned about is about public pools. For decades cities paid for public pools and white people loved these subsidized pools. But once they had to allow black people to use these public facilities, rather than share, the public pools were shut down. Black people for decades were paying taxes to fund these pools they could never use and once they could actually use them, they were filled in with concrete.

https://www.marketplace.org/...cism-shut-them-down/

There are many people being fine with public investment, but only if everyone pays, but only certain people benefit.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
For point 2 a major aspect is what about parents that paid so their kids had no loans or lower loans. They weren't simply all rich. They may have saved much better and limited expenditures in order to save this fund or make payments. The kids with loans may have had parents that spent more lavishly on cars, vacations, etc. Paying off loans they knowingly took while these payments are not available to those who already paid off school and may have worked through school is simply ridiculously unfair. And it is taxpayer money.

I've never been a big fan of loan forgiveness, especially without fixing the cost structure.

But. Sometimes life isn't fair. Not fixing the problem because not everyone would get the benefit is a crappy reason to continue a broken system. If we were to decide to fully fund higher education from this point forward and give ample ways for people to attend free it would seem to be a poor argument to say, "why should they get free college, I had to pay through the nose?"

The cost structure is the foundation of the student loan situation. We created this by drastically cutting state funding for colleges and universities starting in the late 80's/early 90's. From there, the cost shot up.

It is fair to ask whether forgiveness is a good idea. I am just completely not convinced by the argument that some people won't benefit so why should anyone. And I am someone whose balances combined with my wife topped out in the suburban 2 story 3 bedroom fake tudor range based on 2005 home prices.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rick_pcfl wrote:
I won't defend it, only try to explain it based on my experiences as a Christian until about 12 years ago.

I'm fine with that, but what would they do if there was some equivalent for a Muslim who did this in the middle of the US Senate? People nationwide would collectively lose their minds about having a "terrorist" elected. Just light some lefties see someone in prayer and start to twitch.

Personally, our church growing up made it clear that the gifts of things like healing, prophecy, tongues can and do exist in modern times BUT they are bestowed by God. They don't suddenly appear because you go to a certain denomination of church, and that the gift is more rare than a vast majority of a congregation of certain denominations constantly doing the "thing" at the drop of a hat.

I mean the Bible is thousands of pages and it doesn't happen at every other dinner party or church outing.

It comes across as a performative tic for a subset of Christians.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
sosayusall wrote:
It will always be interesting to me that the right wing will argue "we should do X,Y,Z because europe does it" for laws they want. Such as most of europe being to the right of the US before the repeal of roe v. wade.

But then on the other hand, when there is something that the right wing doesnt like - they argue "we cant do that because of socialism"

I would be fine with a paid maternity leave for 8-12 weeks for the first two kids.

Matt and Tyler will argue against it just because Biden is for it.

The reality is the vast majority of Republicans support paid family leave. Trump ran on passing it in 2015 and as President signed the bill that gave it to all 2 million Federal employees…….but if Biden says he wants to pass it the MAGA crowd starts screeching “Socialism!!”

I didn't argue against it. Just pointed out the flaws in your argument... because people want it! Hell, kids want chocolate and TV all day, and would "vote" for it... like 6th grade class presidents offering McDonald's and a soda machine.

You didn’t point out any flaws. You posted a bunch of strawman that had nothing to do with the topic……but you knew that.

Bullshit. Your crying antics devolve threads from rational discussion. My point was not strawman and you hide in claiming strawman. Just a continuance of your lies and obfuscation.

Wrong again Matt. "18 year paid leave" "4 hour work week" etc. are just simplistic strawmen......but you knew that so you now resort to your usual insults and deflection.

Why shouldn't America have paid family leave like the rest of the world? Try to answer with specifics, not deflection, insults, and strawmen.

I didn't argue against it you fool. I said I was fine with it multiple times in this thread. As usual you simply make up fake arguments that people haven't so you can argue what you wish. I simply said your premise of because people want it is not enough rationalization. Without infinite resources people can't have everything they want. Everytime you say yes to something you are effectively saying no no every other mutually exclusive possibility. We could afford much more if we stopped subsidizing other countries with our money.

As usual, more insults and deflection. We can read your posts Matt, you are not fooling anyone.

You really are deranged and mentally unstable.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
mattbk wrote:
For point 2 a major aspect is what about parents that paid so their kids had no loans or lower loans. They weren't simply all rich. They may have saved much better and limited expenditures in order to save this fund or make payments. The kids with loans may have had parents that spent more lavishly on cars, vacations, etc. Paying off loans they knowingly took while these payments are not available to those who already paid off school and may have worked through school is simply ridiculously unfair. And it is taxpayer money.

I've never been a big fan of loan forgiveness, especially without fixing the cost structure.

But. Sometimes life isn't fair. Not fixing the problem because not everyone would get the benefit is a crappy reason to continue a broken system. If we were to decide to fully fund higher education from this point forward and give ample ways for people to attend free it would seem to be a poor argument to say, "why should they get free college, I had to pay through the nose?"

The cost structure is the foundation of the student loan situation. We created this by drastically cutting state funding for colleges and universities starting in the late 80's/early 90's. From there, the cost shot up.

It is fair to ask whether forgiveness is a good idea. I am just completely not convinced by the argument that some people won't benefit so why should anyone. And I am someone whose balances combined with my wife topped out in the suburban 2 story 3 bedroom fake tudor range based on 2005 home prices.

The difference is retroactively giving free college to those who either took paid loans or spent theirs or their parents money. If it is "fixed" as you call it to make it taxpayer funded then everyone knows what they are getting into, same as if it costs individuals their own money. I don't think college should be free and don't want to pay for some bullshit degree someone gets because it is free so they are not too concerned. However paying off some loan someone took out is much worse. What other loans would people want paid off next? Mortgages, vacations, overpriced cars during Covid production issues?

Government changes things throughout time. If taxes get lowered I wouldn't expect money back from all other past taxes I paid. If mortgage rates go down or interest is subsidized by govt in the future, I should not get reimbursed for my financial commitments "prior" to the official change. Nor should I bitch at those that receive the new benefit.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:

You really are deranged and mentally unstable.

Thanks for proving my point.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:

You really are deranged and mentally unstable.

Thanks for proving my point.

If the point was you are compulsive manipulating liar that constantly shifts goalposts and arguments and making up points to argue that others didn't make... Then you are welcome!
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:


You really are deranged and mentally unstable.


Thanks for proving my point.


If the point was you are compulsive manipulating liar that constantly shifts goalposts and arguments and making up points to argue that others didn't make... Then you are welcome!

This doesn't usually work out very well, but can you point to specifically what he lied about?
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:


You really are deranged and mentally unstable.


Thanks for proving my point.


If the point was you are compulsive manipulating liar that constantly shifts goalposts and arguments and making up points to argue that others didn't make... Then you are welcome!

This doesn't usually work out very well, but can you point to specifically what he lied about?

Projection. Matt is all about projection.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
j p o wrote:
mattbk wrote:
For point 2 a major aspect is what about parents that paid so their kids had no loans or lower loans. They weren't simply all rich. They may have saved much better and limited expenditures in order to save this fund or make payments. The kids with loans may have had parents that spent more lavishly on cars, vacations, etc. Paying off loans they knowingly took while these payments are not available to those who already paid off school and may have worked through school is simply ridiculously unfair. And it is taxpayer money.

I've never been a big fan of loan forgiveness, especially without fixing the cost structure.

But. Sometimes life isn't fair. Not fixing the problem because not everyone would get the benefit is a crappy reason to continue a broken system. If we were to decide to fully fund higher education from this point forward and give ample ways for people to attend free it would seem to be a poor argument to say, "why should they get free college, I had to pay through the nose?"

The cost structure is the foundation of the student loan situation. We created this by drastically cutting state funding for colleges and universities starting in the late 80's/early 90's. From there, the cost shot up.

It is fair to ask whether forgiveness is a good idea. I am just completely not convinced by the argument that some people won't benefit so why should anyone. And I am someone whose balances combined with my wife topped out in the suburban 2 story 3 bedroom fake tudor range based on 2005 home prices.

The difference is retroactively giving free college to those who either took paid loans or spent theirs or their parents money. If it is "fixed" as you call it to make it taxpayer funded then everyone knows what they are getting into, same as if it costs individuals their own money. I don't think college should be free and don't want to pay for some bullshit degree someone gets because it is free so they are not too concerned. However paying off some loan someone took out is much worse. What other loans would people want paid off next? Mortgages, vacations, overpriced cars during Covid production issues?

Government changes things throughout time. If taxes get lowered I wouldn't expect money back from all other past taxes I paid. If mortgage rates go down or interest is subsidized by govt in the future, I should not get reimbursed for my financial commitments "prior" to the official change. Nor should I bitch at those that receive the new benefit.

If student loans were like other debt, I might agree with you. Except it’s not dischargeable like medical debt, mortgages, vacation debt, etc. And the loan forgiveness is not limited to dance majors or others who offer talents to society that you might not personally appreciate.

The education of people has value to us all. Maybe the lawyer worked as a public defender. Maybe the journalist worked as a reporter after the demise of modern newspapers. Those wages suck. Biden’s latest loan forgiveness included people who had been paying off loans for 30 years. When you can’t escape debt, the interest keeps accruing. What kind of pathetic society do we have that students can be plagued by student loans into their retirement years? If you’re an otherwise contributing member of society, you should not pay for college for 30 years.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:


You really are deranged and mentally unstable.


Thanks for proving my point.


If the point was you are compulsive manipulating liar that constantly shifts goalposts and arguments and making up points to argue that others didn't make... Then you are welcome!

This doesn't usually work out very well, but can you point to specifically what he lied about?

He lies all the time. If he can't get the argument he wants he makes it up and then argues against it. Teo recent examples are this thread and the FTX/SBF thread.

He also railed against Biden being responsible for gas prices but then attributed reductions in gas prices to him. He argues you can't use Covid data for immigration numbers when they are against his point but points to Covid year data when it helps his point. He does the same with inflation data. He loves to call anyone he disagrees with as liars and "Wrong!", yet he employs lies and manipulation all the time. He is mostly interested in picking fights and finding enemies here. And will make up points to make something seem how he wants it. He constantly adjusts the argument as he loses footing and pretends that the new points were his original points all along. And he will keep arguing until the others endurance runs out. I don't even bother trying to get him to understand, I just call out his BS so others can see him for the lying manipulator he is.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And yet Nutella provides links to documentary support for his statements, which I have found to reliable sources of information which accurately support his statements each time.

When you accuse him of lying, I don’t know that you accurately state his claims that you dispute or think are self-contradictory. Nutella has actually built a foundation for me to believe his positions. It might be helpful if you post links to reliable sources of information to support your claims. At present, I can’t think of a single instance that I clicked on a link from you and was impressed by the information. I have no memory of that ever happening.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Barks&Purrs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks B&P. I try my best to be accurate and present facts to back up my positions. Matt's claims are mostly projection mixed with insults and driven by some odd obsession with me.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Barks&Purrs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Barks&Purrs wrote:
And yet Nutella provides links to documentary support for his statements, which I have found to reliable sources of information which accurately support his statements each time.

When you accuse him of lying, I don’t know that you accurately state his claims that you dispute or think are self-contradictory. Nutella has actually built a foundation for me to believe his positions. It might be helpful if you post links to reliable sources of information to support your claims. At present, I can’t think of a single instance that I clicked on a link from you and was impressed by the information. I have no memory of that ever happening.

That's why I asked for something specific, I should have known better.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
Barks&Purrs wrote:
And yet Nutella provides links to documentary support for his statements, which I have found to reliable sources of information which accurately support his statements each time.

When you accuse him of lying, I don’t know that you accurately state his claims that you dispute or think are self-contradictory. Nutella has actually built a foundation for me to believe his positions. It might be helpful if you post links to reliable sources of information to support your claims. At present, I can’t think of a single instance that I clicked on a link from you and was impressed by the information. I have no memory of that ever happening.

That's why I asked for something specific, I should have known better.

I gave you specifics. You just have to have been paying attention. He literally lied that I said I was against paid maternity leave. I only questioned his reasoning which not a reasonable argument in any way shape or form. He literally lied in the SBF thread making up points that he wanted to argue against that I didn't say. Then even tried to take my own point on to argue as his after his was slipping hard off his slope. He does this all the time. Go spend an afternoon reading through his posts. Though I find liberals here ignore all the logical fallacies he uses because he is spouting far left points. And he is an asshole to anyone that has a different view than him so I treat him like he treats others.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:

I gave you specifics. You just have to have been paying attention. He literally lied that I said I was against paid maternity leave.

He didn't literally say that. He said you would argue against it. He was making a prediction, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Your other, "specifics" are just pointing to threads.

I guess we just have different definitions of specific.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:


I gave you specifics. You just have to have been paying attention. He literally lied that I said I was against paid maternity leave.


He didn't literally say that. He said you would argue against it. He was making a prediction, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Your other, "specifics" are just pointing to threads.

I guess we just have different definitions of specific.


That was his first mention of me after I questioed his argument about having paid maternity leave. So he mentioned me there as someone who is trying to argue it. We then had a back and forth after that where he kept demanding I defend my point against paid leave where I had to tell him 3-4 times in a row that I wasn't against it but that he was not presenting good arguments for anyone to make a reasonable conclusion (which is what the readers expect if there is to be value extracted from these arguments vs just slinging shit). He then went on to insinuate I was lying about not being against it and said his basis here was that everyone could read my posts, yet failed to show where I said I was against it. That is lying to try to make up fake strawman arguments that were not made. Sorry you are having trouble here but seems you did not read the whole thread.

Another lie lately was when he attributed real wage growth to Biden as a positive. However I showed him that nominal wages were down and the only reason real wages were up was because of massive prior inflation that was now dropping faster than wages were dropping. So wages are lower under Biden and he used varying inflation to hide this and lie about Biden raising wages. This is how he operates all the time. Tracking down his BS would be a full time job and I dont live here like many do.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=8111489#p8111489
Last edited by: mattbk: Apr 17, 24 7:29
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:


I gave you specifics. You just have to have been paying attention. He literally lied that I said I was against paid maternity leave.


He didn't literally say that. He said you would argue against it. He was making a prediction, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Your other, "specifics" are just pointing to threads.

I guess we just have different definitions of specific.


That was his first mention of me after I questioed his argument about having paid maternity leave. So he mentioned me there as someone who is trying to argue it. We then had a back and forth after that where he kept demanding I defend my point against paid leave where I had to tell him 3-4 times in a row that I wasn't against it but that he was not presenting good arguments for anyone to make a reasonable conclusion (which is what the readers expect if there is to be value extracted from these arguments vs just slinging shit). He then went on to insinuate I was lying about not being against it and said his basis here was that everyone could read my posts, yet failed to show where I said I was against it. That is lying to try to make up fake strawman arguments that were not made. Sorry you are having trouble here but seems you did not read the whole thread.

Another lie lately was when he attributed real wage growth to Biden as a positive. However I showed him that nominal wages were down and the only reason real wages were up was because of massive prior inflation that was now dropping faster than wages were dropping. So wages are lower under Biden and he used varying inflation to hide this and lie about Biden raising wages. This is how he operates all the time. Tracking down his BS would be a full time job and I dont live here like many do.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=8111489#p8111489

I just read through the whole thread again. You lost me. Nutella accuses you of using strawman arguments several times. Near as I can figure, you consider that lying. If I assume you don't really believe people are arguing for 18 years leave or 4 hour work weeks, I'm not sure how that is anything other than a strawman.

Your second paragraph is a difference of opinion on what data points define wage growth.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is lying, they just disagree with you.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:


I gave you specifics. You just have to have been paying attention. He literally lied that I said I was against paid maternity leave.


He didn't literally say that. He said you would argue against it. He was making a prediction, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Your other, "specifics" are just pointing to threads.

I guess we just have different definitions of specific.


That was his first mention of me after I questioed his argument about having paid maternity leave. So he mentioned me there as someone who is trying to argue it. We then had a back and forth after that where he kept demanding I defend my point against paid leave where I had to tell him 3-4 times in a row that I wasn't against it but that he was not presenting good arguments for anyone to make a reasonable conclusion (which is what the readers expect if there is to be value extracted from these arguments vs just slinging shit). He then went on to insinuate I was lying about not being against it and said his basis here was that everyone could read my posts, yet failed to show where I said I was against it. That is lying to try to make up fake strawman arguments that were not made. Sorry you are having trouble here but seems you did not read the whole thread.

Another lie lately was when he attributed real wage growth to Biden as a positive. However I showed him that nominal wages were down and the only reason real wages were up was because of massive prior inflation that was now dropping faster than wages were dropping. So wages are lower under Biden and he used varying inflation to hide this and lie about Biden raising wages. This is how he operates all the time. Tracking down his BS would be a full time job and I dont live here like many do.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=8111489#p8111489

I just read through the whole thread again. You lost me. Nutella accuses you of using strawman arguments several times. Near as I can figure, you consider that lying. If I assume you don't really believe people are arguing for 18 years leave or 4 hour work weeks, I'm not sure how that is anything other than a strawman.

Your second paragraph is a difference of opinion on what data points define wage growth.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is lying, they just disagree with you.

Try telling your last sentence to Nutella. His shtick here is to call someone's post he disagrees with a liar ("Why do you lie?"). And no you still missed it. He insinuated I was lying by saying I am not against paid maternity leave because that is how he wanted to argue against me. I don't know enough specifics on paid maternity or paternity leave as neither my wife or I have used it yet so haven't looked much into it. Plus my company already has paid parental leave. I would need to hear better arguments than simply because people want it in order to form a more solid opinion.

And on the 2nd paragraph issue either Nutella was trying to lie with some stats that hid the truth or he was too stupid to understand what he was reading. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I'm fully willing to accept your alternative reason if Nutella would ever admit being wrong against his perceived nemeses on here.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:


I gave you specifics. You just have to have been paying attention. He literally lied that I said I was against paid maternity leave.


He didn't literally say that. He said you would argue against it. He was making a prediction, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Your other, "specifics" are just pointing to threads.

I guess we just have different definitions of specific.


That was his first mention of me after I questioed his argument about having paid maternity leave. So he mentioned me there as someone who is trying to argue it. We then had a back and forth after that where he kept demanding I defend my point against paid leave where I had to tell him 3-4 times in a row that I wasn't against it but that he was not presenting good arguments for anyone to make a reasonable conclusion (which is what the readers expect if there is to be value extracted from these arguments vs just slinging shit). He then went on to insinuate I was lying about not being against it and said his basis here was that everyone could read my posts, yet failed to show where I said I was against it. That is lying to try to make up fake strawman arguments that were not made. Sorry you are having trouble here but seems you did not read the whole thread.

Another lie lately was when he attributed real wage growth to Biden as a positive. However I showed him that nominal wages were down and the only reason real wages were up was because of massive prior inflation that was now dropping faster than wages were dropping. So wages are lower under Biden and he used varying inflation to hide this and lie about Biden raising wages. This is how he operates all the time. Tracking down his BS would be a full time job and I dont live here like many do.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=8111489#p8111489


I just read through the whole thread again. You lost me. Nutella accuses you of using strawman arguments several times. Near as I can figure, you consider that lying. If I assume you don't really believe people are arguing for 18 years leave or 4 hour work weeks, I'm not sure how that is anything other than a strawman.

Your second paragraph is a difference of opinion on what data points define wage growth.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is lying, they just disagree with you.


Try telling your last sentence to Nutella. His shtick here is to call someone's post he disagrees with a liar ("Why do you lie?"). And no you still missed it. He insinuated I was lying by saying I am not against paid maternity leave because that is how he wanted to argue against me. I don't know enough specifics on paid maternity or paternity leave as neither my wife or I have used it yet so haven't looked much into it. Plus my company already has paid parental leave. I would need to hear better arguments than simply because people want it in order to form a more solid opinion.

And on the 2nd paragraph issue either Nutella was trying to lie with some stats that hid the truth or he was too stupid to understand what he was reading. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I'm fully willing to accept your alternative reason if Nutella would ever admit being wrong against his perceived nemeses on here.

that's Nutella's standard schtick. It started as "party over country" and "deplorables". At some point the farms talking points changed to "XX is lying and/or ignorant".

Rather than self policing trolls like this in order to generate more honest and serious conversations here, heroes like Thom and trail continue to post at us rather than chastising jerks like Nutella for driving real conversation away. And they get what they deserve. An echo chamber circle jerk.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [mattbk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattbk wrote:
And no you still missed it.

On this we can agree.
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Back on topic!

Johnson maybe again in trouble with "conservatives" (I wish we would not sully the term "conservative" by calling nutters that - granted it was many conservatives who were complicit in soiling their own litterbox in this regard).

I think Johnson should take the Van Orden advice. When MGT, Gaetz threaten to trigger the motion to vacate, just urge them to go ahead do it. DO IT! Bring it to the floor! Just like Bill O'Reilly.


Last edited by: trail: Apr 18, 24 11:30
Quote Reply
Re: Legislators in America in 2024 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Back on topic!


Johnson maybe again in trouble with "conservatives" (I wish we would not sully the term "conservative" by calling nutters that - granted it was many conservatives who were complicit in soiling their own litterbox in this regard).

I think Johnson should take the Van Orden advice. When MGT, Gaetz threaten to trigger the motion to vacate, just urge them to go ahead do it. DO IT! Bring it to the floor! Just like Bill O'Reilly.



Sounds like Johnson is growing a bit of a backbone.


Quote Reply

Prev Next