Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

  1. #21
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    It's perfectly valid to you and those who agree with you for partisan political reasons. To me, it's not valid - no matter which political party is espousing it. Possible outcomes? No --- that's not what was said, it's being stated as a fact, not a possible outcome. And what you deem "evidence" is highly suspect... "modeling outcomes" with numbers? You can make numbers and statistics prove anything. I'm sure you DO agree - you're a liberal. You're motivation is partisan and you're towing the party line.
    Ok. So economists are just being partisan and unprofessional if they come up with an outcome that might support a partisan idea?

    The end result of this argument is that we may as well not have economists and make our decisions by flipping a coin or throwing darts at a board.

  2. #22
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I'm not claiming to be non partisan. I'm claiming that a politician of any political persuasion making such a claim would be to me, invalid.
    Then almost every single political statement is invalid, because, based on the (generally correct) premise that the public prefers simplicity, political language tends to be hyper reductive: distributing blame, taking credit, and calling for action all filter information to the easy, dramatic points people can appreciate.

    As I don't believe you think that way about the language of conservatives and the Republican Party (or it doesn't alter your opinion of either significantly), I don't think you live up to the lofty standard you are claiming.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-22-10 at 04:00 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  3. #23
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Then almost every single political statement is invalid, because, based on the (generally correct) premise that the public prefers simplicity, political language tends to be hyper reductive: distributing blame, taking credit, and calling for action all filter information to the easy, dramatic points.
    Not all political statements are the same. Let me illustrate it. If a politician says, "But for me, the unemployment rate would be 8.9% instead of 9.1%" That's potentially believable. Harry Reid's statement however, "But for me, we (the United State) would be in a worldwide depression", is not believable. First, the head of the Senate doesn't have that much power to influence anything world wide on his/her own. Need I go on or do you understand my point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    As I don't believe you think that way about the language of conservatives and the Republican Party, I don't think you live up to the lofty standard you are claiming.
    Not my problem bud, that's your problem.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #24
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

    Harry Reid....delusions of granduere. like a flea believing it owns the dog.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  5. #25
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

    Not all political statements are the same. Let me illustrate it. If a politician says, "But for me, the unemployment rate would be 8.9% instead of 9.1%" That's potentially believable. Harry Reid's statement however, "But for me, we (the United State) would be in a worldwide depression", is not believable. First, the head of the Senate doesn't have that much power to influence anything world wide on his/her own. Need I go on or do you understand my point?
    I don't think a politician would bother bragging about making employment stick at 8.9% instead of 9.1% because it wouldn't make enough of an impression on the public consciousness to secure them votes.

    Harry Reid couldn't do it on his own, but his influence was sufficiently large that he could have allowed the economy to fail. It is based on his willingness to sponsor legislation that prevented that outcome he bases his claim.

    Not a very sound claim, but fully in the spirit of America's political language, which is, after all, full of not very sound claims.

    Not my problem bud, that's your problem.
    You attacked megaprogman's ethos and championed your own without providing any evidence. It was part of your ongoing debate with him. Like any other point in an argument, you need to prove it or drop it.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-22-10 at 04:16 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  6. #26
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I don't think a politician would bother bragging about making employment stick at 8.9% instead of 9.1% because it wouldn't make enough of an impression on the public consciousness to secure them votes.
    Then you don't know much about politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Harry Reid couldn't do it on his own,
    Yet he made the claim "But for me..." which directly refutes what you just stated... he thinks he did do it on his own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Not a very sound claim, but fully in the spirit of America's political language, which is, after all, full of not very sound claims.
    As I stated, there are degrees of soundness... not very sound? How about borderline schizophrenic dilusional disorder? I'm surprised he didn't throw in a "Up, up, and away!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    You attacked megaprogman's ethos and championed your own without providing any evidence.
    This isn't a qualitative or quantitative masure - there are no statistics to levy. In fact, the burden of proof of some methodology or measure is on mega as he made the claim. Second, I didn't attack anywone - I disagreed and said why. This is a debate forum - not a patty-cake kumbyah forum. Get used to disagreement here. Third, mega doesn't need you at his back - I have a very good debating relations with mega and Ithink we both have mutual respect for each others positions. If you want to take over for him, just say the word. Then you can provide the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    It was part of your ongoing debate with him. Like any other point in an argument, you need to prove it or drop it.
    The one making the claim proves it. It's obvious the claim made by Reid is insane. He did not save the world, nor the U.S. from a world wide depression. If you disagree - it's YOUR burden of proof. So post up the evidence Sherlock... I'd love to read it.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •