• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job[W: 104, 181]

Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
That's what I said: YOU are not responsible for your words. You're provoked into them.

Anyway, if you are unaware of how angry you sound..kinda scary. You sound VERY angry.

If I were to say something like, "We all know most CEOs are conservative, so, well, you know" in the context of a comment in which I'm discussing the greed of CEOs, you really wouldn't interpret that as my saying most CEOS are greedy BECAUSE they're conservative????

Wow. you should. so, that you don't interpret your own words correctly is not my problem. Anyone who read "fact checking is not credible and most fact checkers are liberal, so you know..." absolutely interpreted it in exactly the same way I did.

It'd be nice if those in the party of personal responsibility actually took some themselves, rather than preaching to others about the importance of doing so, once in a while.
Click to expand...

93% of journalists voted dem or contributed as such--last POTUS election cycle. As far as I know all fact checkers are journalists, essentially peer reviewing their own material.
"Most" would be an understatement, if anything.

Im content to wait for you to quit playing word games to justify your illiterate responses and address the topic at hand. BTW, your response to 5 examples of inherent bias of fact checking was not substantive, if you would care to try again, do so. Dissmissal isnt a response, its a lack of one.

PS A slim majority of CEOs happen to be conservative, "most" would fit, but greedy suggests an emotive connotation that is essentially a smear, I wonder how the liberals in that group feel about that. Our conversation was about bias and how it affects fact checking, greed is not indicative of one party or the other. A big logic fail is inherent in your argument, try again.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

OpportunityCost said:
93% of journalists voted dem or contributed as such--last POTUS election cycle. As far as I know all fact checkers are journalists, essentially peer reviewing their own material.
"Most" would be an understatement, if anything.

Im content to wait for you to quit playing word games to justify your illiterate responses and address the topic at hand. BTW, your response to 5 examples of inherent bias of fact checking was not substantive, if you would care to try again, do so. Dissmissal isnt a response, its a lack of one.

PS A slim majority of CEOs happen to be conservative, "most" would fit, but greedy suggests an emotive connotation that is essentially a smear, I wonder how the liberals in that group feel about that. Our conversation was about bias and how it affects fact checking, greed is not indicative of one party or the other. A big logic fail is inherent in your argument, try again.
Click to expand...

1) for the umpteenth time, inform yourself as to what the conversation was before you posted your comment. You have yet to do that. Until you do, your comments are irrelevant because they are out of context;

2) I'm assuming most doctors have libidos too. Are you suggesting they all molest their patients??? (Lemme guess, you don't get it. Sigh);

3) "Greed" is not an emotive thing. It's a real thing. what IS emotive is ascribing lack of professionalism to an entire profession because MOST in that profession personally lean one way politically;

4) Also for the umpteenth time, your comment was, "...most fact-checkers are liberals, so, well, you know..." Are you seriously the only person on this board who can't correctly interpret your own comments and their intent??

Anyway, "most fact checkers are liberal" inherently implies that "most fact checkers are NOT conservative", concluding that fact-checking is a liberal domain. I would happen to agree with that. The "We create reality now" crowd has no need for facts, not when they've got a constituency signing loyalty oaths, pols themselves making promises not to the Constitution but to Grover Norquist, and who gleefully parrot whatever they are told to by Limbaugh, et al, hence the term "Dittoheads."
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury stop regurgitating the liberal pablum. You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

digsbe said:
Maybe congress should be payed the average wage in America. A fundamental change in philosophy has occurred over time. Congress was created and exists to serve the people and represent their constituents, not for the people to serve them. It should be a humble position, not a dignified one.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage. :lol:
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
1) for the umpteenth time, inform yourself as to what the conversation was before you posted your comment. You have yet to do that. Until you do, your comments are irrelevant because they are out of context;

2) I'm assuming most doctors have libidos too. Are you suggesting they all molest their patients??? (Lemme guess, you don't get it. Sigh);

3) "Greed" is not an emotive thing. It's a real thing. what IS emotive is ascribing lack of professionalism to an entire profession because MOST in that profession personally lean one way politically;

4) Also for the umpteenth time, your comment was, "...most fact-checkers are liberals, so, well, you know..." Are you seriously the only person on this board who can't correctly interpret your own comments and their intent??

Anyway, "most fact checkers are liberal" inherently implies that "most fact checkers are NOT conservative", concluding that fact-checking is a liberal domain. I would happen to agree with that. The "We create reality now" crowd has no need for facts, not when they've got a constituency signing loyalty oaths, pols themselves making promises not to the Constitution but to Grover Norquist, and who gleefully parrot whatever they are told to by Limbaugh, et al, hence the term "Dittoheads."
Click to expand...

1. The context with fact checkers is what it always is, someone uses them as a source beyond reproach. I reject that approach and I showed why.

2. You are drawing the widest possible context to defend your poor reasoning. Its not convincing.

3. Greed, as a descriptive term is used to derive an emotional response, its an objective term not a subjective one. What isnt emotive is ascribing a lack of professionalism to an entire profession because they demonstrate that lack through bias very publicly and quite often---then deny it exists also very publicly. The majority of the media industry isnt being nuetral anymore, they root for one side or the other. Whether the media is biased or not is a bone of contention around here but Im damn sure not going to put up with your faulty reasoning without any backup other than cause you say so. I provided reasons why I think fact checking isnt any more reliable than the stories theselves---you need to reach decisions and conclusions on your own from a variet of sources.

4. The only person interpretting what I said that way is YOU.

As for the verbal garbage at the end, it has nothing to do with true or false it has to do with the political leanings of journalists in general. Most journalists are liberal, most fact checkers are journalists. You are applying faulty reasoning to draw a conclusion that speaks to your huge confirmation bias and lean more than it does anything Im saying. Not to mention all the Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, loyalty oath bull****...you are past confirmation bias and into buying your own propaganda. You seriously need to learn to think for yourself, stay on topic, and leave the factually challenged rants at the door.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

gingern44 said:
Dignity?
Click to expand...

Work?

What has Congress done to deserve six-figure salaries? I say put them all on minimum wage and see how that motivates them to get things moving. They can have a pay raise when they stop bawling and actually do some good for the whole country.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

OpportunityCost said:
1. The context with fact checkers is what it always is, someone uses them as a source beyond reproach. I reject that approach and I showed why.

2. You are drawing the widest possible context to defend your poor reasoning. Its not convincing.
.
Click to expand...

"The context with Fact Checkers is what it always is" makes no sense. The whole point of context is to make the content of any communication coherent to THAT particular communication.

But, since you clearly have no intent to GET the context of the conversation to which you responded, I will tell you what it was. I used factcheck.org as a source to back up something I had said. Ocean515 rejected factcheck.org as a source because it is part of the Annenberg Institute and by claiming that George Soros supports both financially, which is false.

I tried to explain that simply saying a name, declaring it to be liberal, and using buzznames does NOT make something lacking in credit as as source, and I asked her to provide his evidence that factcheck.org and Annenberg are not reliable sources.

Ocean then put up, as a source, a commentary about "who checks the fact checkers", a broad essay on why not all fact checkers are reliable, and in THAT article, Ocean's own source stated very clearly that "Not all fact checkers are liberal. Factcheck.org...." and went on to explain why factcheck is NOT a liberal organization (in fact, Annenberg was a big donor to Reagan).

so the conversation you joined was specifically about Factcheck.org and specifically about IT not being liberal and THAT being shown by OCEAN'S own source (Ocean has not been seen around here, or at least around me, ever since).

so your coming in and going off about how factcheckers are liberal, so, well, you know..(translation: because they're liberal, they're not reliable, to which I responded that I find it odd you agree that libs are fact checkers and conservatives are not, which IS what you said, and to which you went off on a bizarre hissy fit) had NOTHING to do with the context of the conversation.

See? So context really does matter. It is very important that you know about that of which you are speaking before you speak. But then, someone who doesn't believe in fact checking probably doesn't believe that context matters either, and that does appear to be the case here.

Now, proceed to simply reject what you just read, per usual, and continue commenting from your bubble.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
"The context with Fact Checkers is what it always is" makes no sense. The whole point of context is to make the content of any communication coherent to THAT particular communication.

But, since you clearly have no intent to GET the context of the conversation to which you responded, I will tell you what it was. I used factcheck.org as a source to back up something I had said. Ocean515 rejected factcheck.org as a source because it is part of the Annenberg Institute and by claiming that George Soros supports both financially, which is false.

I tried to explain that simply saying a name, declaring it to be liberal, and using buzznames does NOT make something lacking in credit as as source, and I asked her to provide his evidence that factcheck.org and Annenberg are not reliable sources.

Ocean then put up, as a source, a commentary about "who checks the fact checkers", a broad essay on why not all fact checkers are reliable, and in THAT article, Ocean's own source stated very clearly that "Not all fact checkers are liberal. Factcheck.org...." and went on to explain why factcheck is NOT a liberal organization (in fact, Annenberg was a big donor to Reagan).

so the conversation you joined was specifically about Factcheck.org and specifically about IT not being liberal and THAT being shown by OCEAN'S own source (Ocean has not been seen around here, or at least around me, ever since).

so your coming in and going off about how factcheckers are liberal, so, well, you know..(translation: because they're liberal, they're not reliable, to which I responded that I find it odd you agree that libs are fact checkers and conservatives are not, which IS what you said, and to which you went off on a bizarre hissy fit) had NOTHING to do with the context of the conversation.

See? So context really does matter. It is very important that you know about that of which you are speaking before you speak. But then, someone who doesn't believe in fact checking probably doesn't believe that context matters either, and that does appear to be the case here.

Now, proceed to simply reject what you just read, per usual, and continue commenting from your bubble.
Click to expand...

LOL so the context was exactly what I said it was, someone used a fact check site as being beyond reproach as a source. Which I debunked--with factcheck.org being the specific target in at least one of those articles. Im sure you have some nuanced word game that says the context isnt what it is.

Let me know when you can tell the difference between MOST and all, which per bolded, you can't. Do you always have to distort posts to make your point or can you read just whats there? How many more tangental arguments are you going to shoot down that I didnt make?
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

OpportunityCost said:
LOL so the context was exactly what I said it was, someone used a fact check site as being beyond reproach as a source. Which I debunked--with factcheck.org being the specific target in at least one of those articles. Im sure you have some nuanced word game that says the context isnt what it is.

Let me know when you can tell the difference between MOST and all, which per bolded, you can't. Do you always have to distort posts to make your point or can you read just whats there? How many more tangental arguments are you going to shoot down that I didnt make?
Click to expand...

Like I said, ignore what I wrote and continue broadcasting from your bubble.

Good job.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
Like I said, ignore what I wrote and continue broadcasting from your bubble.

Good job.
Click to expand...

Im sorry I refuted you so successfully that you have fallen back on illogical baiting. Dont bring something to the table if you arent ready to defend it more capably than that.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

I like Warren Buffet's idea a few years back. Any time a sitting Congress fails to balance the budget, immediately every seat is up for election and no incumbent can run.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

OpportunityCost said:
Im sorry I refuted you so successfully that you have fallen back on illogical baiting. Dont bring something to the table if you arent ready to defend it more capably than that.
Click to expand...


Yes. Very good. (Pats OC on head through one of those arm thingies one uses to touch people who live in bubbles).
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Fenton said:
See, I told you that I was brighter than you and your'e no Democrat.

My Grandfather was a Democrat, and he disassociated from the party when they got hijacked by the likes of HOJ.

Your'e just a partisan highly uninformed individual who's been co-opted into the progressives disaster.

he thought, being a WWII vet that the modern day Democrat party was a disgusting joke.

How you guys only care about soldiers lives when a Republicans in office , or when Stephanopolis quit counting dead soldiers when Obama was elected.

How you only care about shooting victims when they're white children and you can use their death to gain points on a old liberal argument.

How many kids have been gunned down in Chicago this year ? Last year ?

How all of the anti-war protest dried up, or that any grown person could be so stupid as to blame Bush for our current disaster when Clinton gave HUD regulatory power to force the GSEs into buying massive toxic debt and when Clinton in 1995 under EXECUTIVE ORDER forced banks to comply with CRA regulations by loaning to people with poor credit.

No, the massive "depression" is made and mandated by Clintons actions which included allowing for those toxic loans to be securitized in the first place.

You libs whine about regulations and banking that caused it. Well your'e partly correct. Regulations under HUD and CRA not only caused it, they mandated it.

Oh and your'e including TARP in Bush's spending ? Obama voted for that and hey, he "leveled off " spending...


THATS hillarious. 900 billion last quarter alone. Thats like saying I leveled off shoiting bullets into the home intruder at ...90000 bullets.

He was probably dead after the first 3 or 4.

It looks like your'e trying to say a Keynesian approach is needed to repair the collapse of the Democrat mandated bubble? You actually believe that borrowing and taking money out of the private sector to put back into the private sector is going to turn the economy around ?

And at the same time threatening more regulations, higher taxes on producers and then unleashing ObamaCare on companies with more than 50 employees ?

Not to ention the sur taxes in ObamaCare. You think thats how you grow a private sector economy ?

This isn't Keynesian, its desperation. Keynes never argued for massive structural debt with no economic growth. You guys have corrupted Keynes theories.

Youv'e actually bought into the manufactured "eat the rich " lie ? How unfortunate.

You see Obama's approach has people with real wealth holding onto their cash, instead of pushing it out into the market. They figure only an idiot would invest in Obama's economy and they're right.

I mean you actually publicly claimed Obama has spent less than Bush...LOL !!

Do you realize banks are holding onto massive reserves ? Yup. And since 2008 they're getting paid interest on those reserves by the FED. Thats money they by law HAVE to have on hand.
Click to expand...

The author of this rant considers himself bright? Go figure. :lamo
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

humbolt said:
I'm Checking with the AKC. They'll know.
Click to expand...

Is that where you met your wife?
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
Ocean must be eating her toast one crumb at a time.
Click to expand...

Not that it matters Danbury, but the her is a he. Interesting that after so many exchanges over the years, you wouldn't know that.

That should suggest something that apparently excapes you, but has been extremely obvious to others.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

BretJ said:
She thinks that their performance should be "rewarded". I can see the staff members should be paid for the hard work they do, but the actual representatives be they repubs or dems??? Rewarded? Seriously?
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion they should have NO staff and their pay should be cut by two thirds.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

The simple solution, Congress will enact no legislation for which they can be exempt. Add term limits. Two terms for Senators, six for House. Pay is halved, $75.000.00 is plenty. Pensions just like private sector.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

ocean515 said:
Not that it matters Danbury, but the her is a he. Interesting that after so many exchanges over the years, you wouldn't know that.

That should suggest something that apparently excapes you, but has been extremely obvious to others.
Click to expand...


why would the name "ocean515" denote a gender and make it obvious.

btw, a lot of people think I'm male. I could care less. I do apologize for upsetting you though by not knowing the obvious, that "ocean515" is clearly male.

Any comment on your source saying factcheck.org is not liberal, a source you put up to prove that factcheck.org is liberal?
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
why would the name "ocean515" denote a gender and make it obvious.

btw, a lot of people think I'm male. I could care less. I do apologize for upsetting you though by not knowing the obvious, that "ocean515" is clearly male.

Any comment on your source saying factcheck.org is not liberal, a source you put up to prove that factcheck.org is liberal?
Click to expand...


Oh I don't know Danbury. One would think that after 3 or 4 years of exchanging posts on Politico, you might have picked up that I was male. I certainly picked up that your were female. But like I wrote, it doesn't really matter. I consider the source.

Do I have proof about factcheck.org? Of course. And there are articles all over the web about the bias of "fact check" sources. Annenburg is a radical Progressive organization intent on spreading Progressive propoganda. Factcheck.org is a propoganda factory, period. Their Progressive spin is on everything they do.

No matter how much you're paid to deny it, the facts are carved in stone.

I suppose you will just have to deal with it. Unfortunately, I know how you will.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

ocean515 said:
Oh I don't know Danbury. One would think that after 3 or 4 years of exchanging posts on Politico, you might have picked up that I was male. I certainly picked up that your were female. But like I wrote, it doesn't really matter. I consider the source.

Do I have proof about factcheck.org? Of course. And there are articles all over the web about the bias of "fact check" sources. Annenburg is a radical Progressive organization intent on spreading Progressive propoganda. Factcheck.org is a propoganda factory, period. Their Progressive spin is on everything they do.

No matter how much you're paid to deny it, the facts are carved in stone.

I suppose you will just have to deal with it. Unfortunately, I know how you will.
Click to expand...

Okay. so you're just going to ignore your own source and dismiss it.

I figured.

Btw, Annenberg's donating to Reagan is evidence of its liberalism? And Soros, btw, does NOT donate to either Annenberg OR factcheck.org. YOu really should check your facts before posting.

Also btw, as soon as someone pointed out that you are male, I ran with it. First I knew of it. But if that's what you have to attack me, don't let me stop you. You think I was willfully referring to you as female when I allegedly knew you were male?

I call that paranoia because the thought is utterly absurd.

But whatever, Ocean.

Tip: next time you use a source to back up a claim you make, make sure you won't have to turn around and dismiss it as a source when it's shown it says exactly the opposite of what you claimed. But in the meantime, note that you only prove that you believe what you WANT to believe, not what even your own sources and evidence say.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job[W: 104]

66gardeners said:
I told him that and more. I told him he
was incompetent to teach history because he did not know how to stick to facts.
Click to expand...

I suspect your entire story is made up. Listen you can push your agenda with out writing Michael Phelps fan fiction.

My oldest played water polo, and you really cant hear yourself think if your'e at water level or in the pool area in general.

But "everyone in the pool area heard it "......was everyone else doing water-Aerobics ?

Just explain your irrational love fest for a destructive incompetent President minus the embellishments.
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Danbury said:
Okay. so you're just going to ignore your own source and dismiss it.

I figured.

Btw, Annenberg's donating to Reagan is evidence of its liberalism? And Soros, btw, does NOT donate to either Annenberg OR factcheck.org. YOu really should check your facts before posting.

Also btw, as soon as someone pointed out that you are male, I ran with it. First I knew of it. But if that's what you have to attack me, don't let me stop you. You think I was willfully referring to you as female when I allegedly knew you were male?

I call that paranoia because the thought is utterly absurd.

But whatever, Ocean.

Tip: next time you use a source to back up a claim you make, make sure you won't have to turn around and dismiss it as a source when it's shown it says exactly the opposite of what you claimed. But in the meantime, note that you only prove that you believe what you WANT to believe, not what even your own sources and evidence say.
Click to expand...


Danbury, you really don't want to enter into a discussion on this issue.

Walter Annenburg was a staunch friend of Ronald Reagan. His spoiled, guilt ridden daughter, Wallis Annenburg has taken his billions and his legacy, and perverted his beliefs and causes to advance a liberal/progressive agenda across the country, and into our childrens classrooms.

This is the very same thing that has happened to the Ford Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and many others.

Btw. I never suggested Soros donated to Annenberg. IF you ever did some research, you would learn they team together. Check out the Democracy Alliance, and many other radical progressive enterprises founded by Soros. They are supporters of the same radical liberal/progressive casuses.

You know this to be true Danbury, so why would you try to deny it?

(P.S. How many times do you have to read I don't care about the gender thing before it registers in your mind?)
 
Re: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

ocean515 said:
Danbury, you really don't want to enter into a discussion on this issue.

Walter Annenburg was a staunch friend of Ronald Reagan. His spoiled, guilt ridden daughter, Wallis Annenburg has taken his billions and his legacy, and perverted his beliefs and causes to advance a liberal/progressive agenda across the country, and into our childrens classrooms.

This is the very same thing that has happened to the Ford Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and many others.

Btw. I never suggested Soros donated to Annenberg. IF you ever did some research, you would learn they team together. Check out the Democracy Alliance, and many other radical progressive enterprises founded by Soros. They are supporters of the same radical liberal/progressive casuses.

You know this to be true Danbury, so why would you try to deny it?
1) YOu absolutely said Soros funds it.

2) I'm not interested in your six-degrees of separation, oh, there's a liberal nearby so it must be false nonsense. It's just that, nonsense;
3) You continue to ignore the point that being associated with Soros or anyone else is NOT evidence of ANYTHING. So I asked you for EVIDENCE that factcheck.org is liberal, and YOU gave me an article that specifically stated that it is in fact NOT liberal.

Now, do I acknowledge that the American right creates its own reality and never, ever lets actual reality interfere, as you are doing here? Yes, I am.
(P.S. How many times do you have to read I don't care about the gender thing before it registers in your mind?)
Click to expand...


If you didn't care about the gender thing, why did YOU bring it up?

Sheesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom