2 of 3
2
Anyone listening to The Speech?
Posted: 02 February 2014 06:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 06:26 PM
Bryan - 02 February 2014 10:30 AM

Hey, let’s go off-topic right away!  Is the 77-cent stat bogus for advocating equal work for equal pay?  Yes or no.

I have no idea, and neither do you. I’m inclined to believe it.

Of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/28/fact-checking-the-2014-state-of-the-union-address/

Really?  It’s not that hard to turn uninformed voters into informed voters and then get them to vote.

You’re inclined to believe the 77-cent statistic.  Do you vote?

The problem you have with that is that most of the information one could Objectively supply to potential voters
will most likely make them vote Democrat.  That’s obvious.

It’s obvious like your mastery of the free will issue.

Obviously neither you nor President Obama.

I’m sure Obama had a study behind his statements too.  I trust his study more than I trust yours.

You haven’t bothered to look into it, then.  Perhaps because you’re already so well informed.  wink

Regardless of merit?  Why is that a good thing?  Suppose you owned a company where woman was paid less going back 30 years and no longer had the documentation detailing why the woman was paid less (assume it existed at one time).  Would you consider that fair?

Yes. It’s a good thing because it forces the issue.

Unfairness in the name of fairness is good.  Gotcha.

Are you going to answer the question about women being unequal in this country or not?

Not.

I don’t think most people think that wanting fairness justifies unfairness.  Hence there’s no point in addressing your question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 02 February 2014 06:48 PM

Of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/28/fact-checking-the-2014-state-of-the-union-address/

You don’t get it do you? I believe in pro-active legislation from initiatives, the bench, Congress or anywhere else laws can be changed.
As long as they meet a progressive/left standard. If not then I’m against them. It’s really simple.
I don’t like to get caught up with reactionary’s ideas of selective objectivity.
That’s like a toothache.

You’re inclined to believe the 77-cent statistic.  Do you vote?

Yes I vote the Democratic ticket because that’s the closest I can get to voting even farther left.
I vote the Party line. I’m an idealogue. Most definitely. One of my biggest passions is getting others to vote that way too.
So whether the information is true of not, if it matches the party line, then I vote for it.
Pretty standard.
Let me guess, you are going to apply selective objectivity to this too?

It’s obvious like your mastery of the free will issue.

Are you faltering here?  Stay on topic.

You haven’t bothered to look into it, then.  Perhaps because you’re already so well informed.  wink

See the lines above.

Unfairness in the name of fairness is good.  Gotcha.

Ah yes, more selective objectivity. And you haven’t shown any proof of unfairness…

Why can’t you answer a simple question about History Bryan?
I’ll ask again…Were women ever discriminated against in this country?
Are they still discriminated against? If not, then tell me when the discrimination ended.

I’ll help you along Bryan.  Did the discrimination end when they got the right to vote in 1919?
Is that when the discrimination ended? Or was it later?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 07:06 PM

You don’t get it do you? I believe in pro-active legislation from initiatives, the bench, Congress or anywhere else laws can be changed.
As long as they meet a progressive/left standard. If not then I’m against them. It’s really simple.
I don’t like to get caught up with reactionary’s ideas of selective objectivity.
That’s like a toothache.

So I had you pretty much pegged last time by noting that you think unfairness in the name of fairness is good.

There’s a parallel to the Bill Ayers’ early days when his group of radicals proposed sending those in opposition off to concentration camps to die. It’s for the people.

You’re inclined to believe the 77-cent statistic.  Do you vote?

Yes I vote the Democratic ticket because that’s the closest I can get to voting even farther left.
I vote the Party line. I’m an idealogue. Most definitely. One of my biggest passions is getting others to vote that way too.
So whether the information is true of not, if it matches the party line, then I vote for it.
Pretty standard.
Let me guess, you are going to apply selective objectivity to this too?

This too in addition to what?

Weren’t you the one who told me educating uninformed voters is easy?  You’re the test case.  You describe yourself as an ideologue.  That’s a great start.  wink

This is just showing that you say stuff that’s silly.

It’s obvious like your mastery of the free will issue.

Are you faltering here?  Stay on topic.

VYAZMA translated:  “Ouch.”

You haven’t bothered to look into it, then.  Perhaps because you’re already so well informed.  wink

See the lines above.

Right, confirming my point that educating voters is tough.  Most are like you.  They vote for the party and don’t really care much about the facts.  Give them studies and they’ll lean toward Obama’s 77-cent statistic.

Unfairness in the name of fairness is good.  Gotcha.

Ah yes, more selective objectivity. And you haven’t shown any proof of unfairness…

Why would I need proof of unfairness?  You’ve already confirmed the accuracy of my assessment:

“I believe in pro-active legislation from initiatives, the bench, Congress or anywhere else laws can be changed.
As long as they meet a progressive/left standard. If not then I’m against them. It’s really simple.”

Logical extension:  A law that makes it unfairly easy to sue over gender-based pay discrimination is good if it meets a progressive/left standard, even if it allows some employers to be unfairly sued (having placed them in a position where defense against a civil suit is MOL impossible).  Why should you care if it’s unfair?  Go Progressivism!  Go Leftism!  Hopefully it’s right-wingers who get screwed over by the system!

Why can’t you answer a simple question about History Bryan?

You do like trying to go off-topic.  Props for the fallacious premise to your question.  Perhaps you should ask yourself if you’re faltering.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 02 February 2014 07:38 PM

So I had you pretty much pegged last time by noting that you think unfairness in the name of fairness is good.

Yeah you’re a real sleuth. You got everything pegged. So now what?
Do you want us all to sit around in a circle and listen to you lay down the facts?
You got me pegged…Wow! Is that going to change the value of my vote Bryan? LOL
You are a real sleuth.

This too in addition to what?

Wha?  Is there context to this?

Weren’t you the one who told me educating uninformed voters is easy?  You’re the test case.  You describe yourself as an ideologue.  That’s a great start.  wink

Yeah. You see it moving the country in a direction? I do! By your frustrated comments I’m guessing you don’t like the direction…
We don’t need to educate voters as much as we need them to just get out an vote. They already have plenty of innate education.
It’s just as easy to educate people on what NOT to vote for. That’s the easiest part!

This is just showing that you say stuff that’s silly.

Hmnn. Well said.

VYAZMA translated:  “Ouch.”

Yeah-ouch!  Let’s get back to the Free-will thread. You can tell us all how god gave us the power of free-will to fight evil.

Right, confirming my point that educating voters is tough.  Most are like you.  They vote for the party and don’t really care much about the facts.  Give them studies and they’ll lean toward Obama’s 77-cent statistic.

Yeah you are bright.  Educating people to vote Republican must be difficult.
How do you educate people to vote against their own interests?
That’s a problem you’ll have to worry about. The Republicans are having an image problem…
Must be because you guys suck at educating voters.(to vote against their own interests.)

Why would I need proof of unfairness?

Because you claimed the Ledbetter Act was unfair. That’s why.  Did you have any proof?
No?  That’s what I thought.
If you make a claim it’s nice to have proof. But you don’t have to have it. You’re OK.

Logical extension:  A law that makes it unfairly easy to sue over gender-based pay discrimination is good…

See right here. How do you prove your statement? I don’t think it’s unfair.
I say it isn’t unfair. Now prove me wrong!

You do like trying to go off-topic. 

That’s not off-topic Bryan.  Answer the question. When did women become equal with men in the US?
Did you have a date? Or a specific piece of legislation that made them equal?
Or do you just not like to discuss things like this? Women should be in the kitchen and not heard kind of a thing?

Or perhaps your knowledge of history is lacking? I don’t know….
I’m sure it’s not one of the topics the Republicans use when they are “educating” voters. LOL
Image problems….uh oh….Think it’s gonna get worse?  I do.

[ Edited: 02 February 2014 08:19 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 08:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 08:14 PM

You are a real sleuth.

lol

This too in addition to what?

Wha?  Is there context to this?

There was before you replied and edited it away.  Are you familiar with the concept of reading?

lol

We don’t need to educate voters as much as we need them to just get out an vote.

Let me guess:  After you confirm a bunch of things I’ve written via your own comments, you’ll still turn around at the end and make some sort of comment to the effect that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  wink

Hmnn. Well said.

Thank you, assuming you’re being sincere.

VYAZMA translated:  “Ouch.”

Yeah-ouch!  Let’s get back to the Free-will thread. You can tell us all how god gave us the power of free-will to fight evil.

If I remember correctly, you were going to settle the issue once and for all with a handful or so of short and simple posts.  I don’t see why you’d need me to complicate your simple agenda by bringing God into it.

Right, confirming my point that educating voters is tough.  Most are like you.  They vote for the party and don’t really care much about the facts.  Give them studies and they’ll lean toward Obama’s 77-cent statistic.

Yeah you are bright.  Educating people to vote Republican must be difficult.
How do you educate people to vote against their own interests?
That’s a problem you’ll have to worry about. The Republicans are having an image problem…
Must be because you guys suck at educating voters.(to vote against their own interests.)

The average Republican voter is better informed than the average liberal voter.  Democrats have the advantage with a highly educated minority (some might call this an “elite”) and among low-information voters.  Republicans have the advantage in the in-between.  Statistically, that suggests that a better informed electorate will favor Republican policies ... unless we go too far and give them multiple PhDs and grant them tenure, in which case they’ll vote Democrat.  wink

Why would I need proof of unfairness?

Because you claimed the Ledbetter Act was unfair. That’s why.  Did you have any proof?

Where did I say the Ledbetter Act was unfair?  Do you have any proof?

No?  That’s what I thought.

You took the words right out of my mouth. 

I said the Ledbetter law makes it possible to easily win civil lawsuits because of the way it sidesteps the statute of limitations.  Are you the one I questioned about the statute of limitations?  Did you skip the question?

You confirmed for me that you don’t care whether the law is unfair, so long as it advances your liberal/leftist causes.  So why do you need proof if you don’t care?  Answer:  You need it for the sake of your interminable word games.  Play on, Democrat voter.

If you make a claim it’s nice to have proof. But you don’t have to have it. You’re OK.

It’s nice that you occasionally grant me the free ride you regularly take advantage of yourself.

Logical extension:  A law that makes it unfairly easy to sue over gender-based pay discrimination is good…

See right here. How do you prove your statement? I don’t think it’s unfair.

Changed your mind for the sake of argument?  Cute.

Yes. It’s a good thing because it forces the issue.

I say it isn’t unfair. Now prove me wrong!

Given that you’ve claimed it’s fair, I’d say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you’ve sincerely changed your mind.  Prove it.  What led you to change your mind, other than a sincere aspiration to see yourself as a successful gadfly?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Did you have any specific points you wanted to discuss Bryan?
I made my points.  Did you find any specific points I made unreasonable?
Just point them out. You’re starting to digress into your normal attack/ and misquote mode.
It’s tiresome.
What points of mine didn’t you agree with?
Go ahead, I’ll be waiting.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 02 February 2014 08:49 PM

Given that you’ve claimed it’s fair, I’d say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you’ve sincerely changed your mind.  Prove it. 

What are you claiming was my “change of mind” Bryan?
I’m waiting.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 11:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 09:02 PM

Did you have any specific points you wanted to discuss Bryan?

Yes.  I’m addressing President Obama’s misleading rhetoric during his SOTU speech, and the associated problem of the uninformed voter.  I’m discussing both those things.

I made my points.  Did you find any specific points I made unreasonable?

Yes.  Your points are off-topic.  The diversionary nature of your points is unreasonable.

Just point them out. You’re starting to digress into your normal attack/ and misquote mode.

I didn’t misquote you, and it’s appropriate to attack your arguments (at least those that are interesting enough to address when they’re not off-topic).

Do you need evidence that you’ve been misquoted (see what I mean?)?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 11:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 09:04 PM
Bryan - 02 February 2014 08:49 PM

Given that you’ve claimed it’s fair, I’d say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you’ve sincerely changed your mind.  Prove it. 

What are you claiming was my “change of mind” Bryan?
I’m waiting.

I quoted you (accurately) and linked the source document (your post).  Try reading instead of waiting.

We’re likely to get another example of the difficulty with informing people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 11:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 02 February 2014 11:37 PM
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 09:04 PM
Bryan - 02 February 2014 08:49 PM

Given that you’ve claimed it’s fair, I’d say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you’ve sincerely changed your mind.  Prove it. 

What are you claiming was my “change of mind” Bryan?
I’m waiting.

I quoted you (accurately) and linked the source document (your post).  Try reading instead of waiting.

We’re likely to get another example of the difficulty with informing people.

What did I change my mind about Bryan?  You said I changed my mind about something.
What was it?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 02 February 2014 11:35 PM

Yes.  I’m addressing President Obama’s misleading rhetoric during his SOTU speech, and the associated problem of the uninformed voter.  I’m discussing both those things.

 

What are the associated problems of the uninformed voters?
That’s on topic right? You just said that’s what you are addressing.
I don’t see any problems with so called “uninformed” voters.
Go ahead. Let’s stay on your topic.
Please elucidate.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2014 12:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 02 February 2014 11:49 PM

What did I change my mind about Bryan?  You said I changed my mind about something.
What was it?

You refuse to read, eh?

I asked you a question based on the premise that the Ledbetter law would allow plaintiffs to win lawsuits against defendants who had done no wrong.  I asked if you thought that was a good thing.  You said yes, approving the unfair result in the service of your greater good.

Then you decided the law was fair.

And along the way you’re avoiding the critical discussion of the use and purpose of the statute of limitations.

Twist in the wind, VYAZMA.  You’re an ongoing proof of the difficulty of informing people about stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2014 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 03 February 2014 12:23 AM

I asked you a question based on the premise that the Ledbetter law would allow plaintiffs to win lawsuits against defendants who had done no wrong.  I asked if you thought that was a good thing.  You said yes, approving the unfair result in the service of your greater good.

Then you decided the law was fair.

And along the way you’re avoiding the critical discussion of the use and purpose of the statute of limitations.

 

I don’t care. Do you want to believe I think the law is unfair?  Do you want to think I believe the law is fair?
Whichever suits you Bryan. LOL
So if you would like to continue on under the premise of whether I think the law is fair or unfair go right ahead.
Your choice.  I’m just glad that laws like that are in effect. I love those laws.
Let me know under what premise you want to continue on…fair or unfair? LOL

To the second part of your post here….I don’t consider the statute of limitations issue critical.
Whatever it takes to give the law real teeth is what I’m for. So discussing the critical nature as you see it sounds pretty boring.

Like I said, I’m for laws that level the playing field, no matter what it takes.
Read “level” as…redistribution.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2014 09:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

The uninformed voters are all voting Republican. The more uninformed they are, the further right they are.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2014 09:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Lois - 03 February 2014 09:13 PM

The uninformed voters are all voting Republican. The more uninformed they are, the further right they are.

Lois

Yes exactly. The ironic thing is Bryan is bellyaching about how hard it is to inform voters.
I said,  I bet it is when you have to somehow educate voters to vote against their own interests.
That must be a real pain in the butt! LOL  They’re running out of ideas, and fast!

“How do we get our message across to the middle class voters?”
Use the “socialist” line again.  Turn the whites against the blacks. Turn the males against the females.
Ughh, they’re clueless.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2