Psychopaths

[Schneibster]

Then there's "we didn't kill the supercommittee."

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes. Sen. Tom Coburn’s mega-compromise, the nucleus of a “Gang of Six” deal that would raise some taxes while cutting spending, got nowhere. The “grand bargain” that Speaker John Boehner flirted with in the summer, the one that could have averted the debt crisis, couldn’t pass a Republican Congress. A Gallup poll about the failure had voters blaming the GOP by a 3-to-2 margin (all voters) or a 2-to-1 margin (independents).

Source.

The majority doesn't believe it. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you think that is proof that the Republicans are "lying?"

I'm with the majority. And the majority do.

That's not what determines whether someone is actually lying.

The majority of Americans think Obama is doing a bad job. Is he?

"Doing a bad job" is not a question of integrity. Lying is. And in questions of integrity, we require (ultimately) the vote of twelve jurors to determine what we will call "truth." So, yes, that's indeed how we determine whether someone is actually lying, and you of all people should know it.

And as far as whether Obama's doing a bad job, I have to say that if most people think he is then he probably is. I think so.

[Cunt]

[quote="Schneibster"]Cranks don't post science articles from major science journalism sites on the 'Net.
Lie (and far from the first)
The proof is here, don't be too dense to see it, or I will show everyone your lack.

[Schneibster]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?

The best you've done is come up with a fairly weak and juvenile argument for why some regulations might be good.

Here's another reason, and I got plenty more: we got rid of the regulations and the banksters stole everything and fucked the economy. Is that good for business? I'm going with "no." Need more?

"The best you've done" is a lie.

[Schneibster]

Cranks don't post science articles from major science journalism sites on the 'Net.

Lie (and far from the first)
The proof is here, don't be too dense to see it, or I will show everyone your lack.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1054980

That's my post, from an hour ago, a science article from a major science journalism site on the 'Net. Precisely what I claimed.

Bring it, any time.

[Coito ergo sum]

But how about "We're not trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?"

One, when you're talking about lying, you can't just make up your own quote, attribute it to someone, and then call it a lie. That's called a "straw man." Nobody that I'm aware of every said what you just quoted. If you'd like to present evidence that someone has, then that would be your burden. If not, if you like I can give you an estimate of the number of fucks I give about whether or not you respond, at this point.

Fine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... idn_t.html

Quotes and proof they're lies all in one handy package. Knock yourself out.

I read that article again. No quotes followed by proof that they're lies. Did you even read your own article?

Two, if someone like a current sitting member of the House or Senate said that they weren't trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House, or words to that effect, then I would suspect they are telling the truth. I highly doubt that any current member of the House or Senate is affirmatively trying to ruin the economy, and I doubt they think Obama is scary.

Mitch McConnell's highest priority, out of his own mouth, is not "fix the economy," it's "keep Obama from getting elected."

You'll need to explain how that demonstrates a statement that is a lie.

Proof that you're wrong and they said they would.

Absolutely not. It's not proof of that. Please cite an actual statement that someone said that was false. Nobody said they would ruin the economy to get Obama out of office, or anything even close to it.

So, if that is what you think is a "lie" then you have some work ahead of you.

All done.

I grow weary of you, because you are either stone stupid, or just fucking around.

Bring it. Anytime, sport.

You're like a child.

Who said that? How do you know they are lying? Do you have ANY evidence, or are you just pulling more shit out of your asshole?

Here's the story, with a quote of Mitch saying it, and then a quote of him trying to deny it a year later. Outright lying, about what he himself said as if nobody's going to remember.

Anytime at all. You call it.

I just wasted a lot of my time reading your shit link. He doesn't say what you said he said. But, if you'd like to actually be intellectually honest here and extract a quote or two that you say are "lies" I'd love for you to do that. Because, frankly, there is no quote in there that is identified as a lie.

You apparently do not know what a lie is.

[Schneibster]

But how about "We're not trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?"

One, when you're talking about lying, you can't just make up your own quote, attribute it to someone, and then call it a lie. That's called a "straw man." Nobody that I'm aware of every said what you just quoted. If you'd like to present evidence that someone has, then that would be your burden. If not, if you like I can give you an estimate of the number of fucks I give about whether or not you respond, at this point.

Fine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... idn_t.html

Quotes and proof they're lies all in one handy package. Knock yourself out.

I read that article again. No quotes followed by proof that they're lies. Did you even read your own article?

Portman on Monday: “The economic policies that this administration has followed, and what this Congress did in the first two years of the Obama administration, has made the problems even more urgent, because they have accelerated the potential for an economic and fiscal trainwreck.”

Toomey on Tuesday: “What happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and the mounting debt that caused this committee to come into being, was, fundamentally, a spending spree. Remember, it’s been this sequence of stimulus bills, and bailouts, and government takeovers—a huge surge in discretionary spending.”

Portman again: “Some would say that the answer is raising tax rates, that our current rates can never generate the revenue needed to govern this big and complex country. I would remind us that several years ago, only four years ago, in 2007, we had almost a balanced budget with the same tax code we had today, and the same tax rates.”

Toomey again: “As recently as 2007, the very tax rates we have today, this code, generated revenue that was about the historical average, 18 percent of GDP. And with revenue at 18 percent of GDP, we had a deficit that was almost trivial in size.”

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes.

And we already did "majority." It's like a jury. Which you know all about.

[Coito ergo sum]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?

The best you've done is come up with a fairly weak and juvenile argument for why some regulations might be good.

Here's another reason, and I got plenty more: we got rid of the regulations and the banksters stole everything and fucked the economy. Is that good for business? I'm going with "no." Need more?

"The best you've done" is a lie.

Come the fuck on, dude. Really? You don't get it?

Your assertion is that "regulations are bad for business" is a lie. It's not a fucking lie. Even with your stupid-ass argument about how in one particular instance YOU THINK that regulations were "gotten rid of" and then "banksters stole everything" because of it, it doesn't fucking make the statement that you said was a "lie" a "lie." I mean - for fuck's sake man.

The most you've possibly ARGUED for is that SOME regulations are good for business. That's all well and good. That doesn't make the statement "regulations are bad for business" a "lie" because it is still arguable that SOME regulations are also bad for business, that SOME regulations suck ass, and one can also make the argument that on balance, overall, regulations are worse for business.

I mean - come the fuck on, dude. Think.

I've about had it. You may be going on ignore, because I can't talk to a 10 year old much longer. And, frankly, after all this, you still make a fatuous statement that "the best you've done" is a "lie." I mean - what the fuck? Giant douche.

[Coito ergo sum]

But how about "We're not trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?"

One, when you're talking about lying, you can't just make up your own quote, attribute it to someone, and then call it a lie. That's called a "straw man." Nobody that I'm aware of every said what you just quoted. If you'd like to present evidence that someone has, then that would be your burden. If not, if you like I can give you an estimate of the number of fucks I give about whether or not you respond, at this point.

Fine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... idn_t.html

Quotes and proof they're lies all in one handy package. Knock yourself out.

I read that article again. No quotes followed by proof that they're lies. Did you even read your own article?

Portman on Monday: “The economic policies that this administration has followed, and what this Congress did in the first two years of the Obama administration, has made the problems even more urgent, because they have accelerated the potential for an economic and fiscal trainwreck.”

Toomey on Tuesday: “What happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and the mounting debt that caused this committee to come into being, was, fundamentally, a spending spree. Remember, it’s been this sequence of stimulus bills, and bailouts, and government takeovers—a huge surge in discretionary spending.”

Portman again: “Some would say that the answer is raising tax rates, that our current rates can never generate the revenue needed to govern this big and complex country. I would remind us that several years ago, only four years ago, in 2007, we had almost a balanced budget with the same tax code we had today, and the same tax rates.”

Toomey again: “As recently as 2007, the very tax rates we have today, this code, generated revenue that was about the historical average, 18 percent of GDP. And with revenue at 18 percent of GDP, we had a deficit that was almost trivial in size.”

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes.

And we already did "majority." It's like a jury. Which you know all about.

Once again - they made statements, none of which are identified or shown to be lies. What you're doing, as usual, is just taking a political opinion or opinion on economics that you disagree with and which you think is wrong, and saying that because you think it's wrong it's a lie.

[Schneibster]

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?

The best you've done is come up with a fairly weak and juvenile argument for why some regulations might be good.

Here's another reason, and I got plenty more: we got rid of the regulations and the banksters stole everything and fucked the economy. Is that good for business? I'm going with "no." Need more?

"The best you've done" is a lie.

Come the fuck on, dude. Really? You don't get it?

Of course I "get it." I can see more lies being cranked out every day.

"Russia is in my front yard."
"I never diddled any little kids in the Congressional Page Program."
"HPV vaccines cause brain damage."
"Obama is a Muslim."
"Unions are evil."
"Gays are evil."
"Guns are good."

What's to get?

Since you need more on why regulations are good for business, how about, regulations keep businesses from selling one another defective goods. Need more?

[Schneibster]

One, when you're talking about lying, you can't just make up your own quote, attribute it to someone, and then call it a lie. That's called a "straw man." Nobody that I'm aware of every said what you just quoted. If you'd like to present evidence that someone has, then that would be your burden. If not, if you like I can give you an estimate of the number of fucks I give about whether or not you respond, at this point.

Fine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... idn_t.html

Quotes and proof they're lies all in one handy package. Knock yourself out.

I read that article again. No quotes followed by proof that they're lies. Did you even read your own article?

Portman on Monday: “The economic policies that this administration has followed, and what this Congress did in the first two years of the Obama administration, has made the problems even more urgent, because they have accelerated the potential for an economic and fiscal trainwreck.”

Toomey on Tuesday: “What happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and the mounting debt that caused this committee to come into being, was, fundamentally, a spending spree. Remember, it’s been this sequence of stimulus bills, and bailouts, and government takeovers—a huge surge in discretionary spending.”

Portman again: “Some would say that the answer is raising tax rates, that our current rates can never generate the revenue needed to govern this big and complex country. I would remind us that several years ago, only four years ago, in 2007, we had almost a balanced budget with the same tax code we had today, and the same tax rates.”

Toomey again: “As recently as 2007, the very tax rates we have today, this code, generated revenue that was about the historical average, 18 percent of GDP. And with revenue at 18 percent of GDP, we had a deficit that was almost trivial in size.”

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes.

And we already did "majority." It's like a jury. Which you know all about.

Once again - they made statements, none of which are identified or shown to be lies. What you're doing, as usual, is just taking a political opinion or opinion on economics that you disagree with and which you think is wrong, and saying that because you think it's wrong it's a lie.

Toomey on Tuesday: “What happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and the mounting debt that caused this committee to come into being, was, fundamentally, a spending spree. Remember, it’s been this sequence of stimulus bills, and bailouts, and government takeovers—a huge surge in discretionary spending.”

What happened that brought about the massive budget deficits was off-budget Iraq and the unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit and the unfunded Bush tax cuts, and I can produce charts that prove it. That, right there, is Toomey lying. No questions, no doubts, no horseshit, and the only reason it works is because he's talking to the half that are below IQ 100 and won't ever bother to look it up.



Source.

[Schneibster]

Looks like another lie. Sorry reality has such a strong liberal bias.

[Cunt]

The proof is here, don't be too dense to see it, or I will show everyone your lack.

Cranks don't post science articles from major science journalism sites on the 'Net.

Lie (and far from the first)

Bring it, any time.

LMFAO

[Schneibster]

So Cunt got drunk.

[Gallstones]

Of course I "get it." I can see more lies being cranked out every day.

"Russia is in my front yard."
"I never diddled any little kids in the Congressional Page Program."
"HPV vaccines cause brain damage."
"Obama is a Muslim."
"Unions are evil."
"Gays are evil."
"Guns are good."

What's to get?

Since you need more on why regulations are good for business, how about, regulations keep businesses from selling one another defective goods. Need more?

That last one isn't a lie.

[Schneibster]

Of course I "get it." I can see more lies being cranked out every day.

"Russia is in my front yard."
"I never diddled any little kids in the Congressional Page Program."
"HPV vaccines cause brain damage."
"Obama is a Muslim."
"Unions are evil."
"Gays are evil."
"Guns are good."

What's to get?

Since you need more on why regulations are good for business, how about, regulations keep businesses from selling one another defective goods. Need more?

That last one isn't a lie.

Sorry. Sorry.