Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

You seem to ignore any of the work that the Kennedy administration did on the bill in favor of whoever's name was signed on the bottom. Your technical claim of them being "LBJ's tax cuts" because they passed under his three months of leadership is almost analogous to 2009 being "Obama's budget deficit."

Your analogy doesn't make any sense, as Obama didn't do anything in order to trigger that deficit. Kennedy may have introduced the legislation, and if you consider the author of the bill ownership, then it was his bill, but that's not what I'm disputing.

I think a fair metric to assigning recognition would be to actually look at who did the lion share of the work which was unquestionably the Kennedy administration.

This is wrong; at best it was 50-50. Kennedy got it through the House, a respectable achievement to be sure, but he couldn't get it out of the Senate. Hell, he couldn't even get the Senate to finish hearings on the bill. The chances of the bill passing through the Senate were so bad, in fact, that JFK's staff considered it dead. Johnson came in, got it through the Senate, then signed it. Johnson cut taxes.

The statement "JFK cut taxes" is wrong. The statement "JFK's bill cut taxes" is correct.

Or you can be a fanboy and just say it was your guy LBJ.

From any outside observer, you are appearing to be the disingenuous party here. I'm not a boy.

 

[Oblivion]

Mark Levin just came out in favor of de-criminilizing weed. What the hell is goin on?

 

[Tamanon]

Decriminalizing marijuana should be a traditional conservative position, but it's not.

 

[The Librarian]

Here's Megyn Kelly going after Erick Erickson for his comments.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Your analogy doesn't make any sense, as Obama didn't do anything in order to trigger that deficit. Kennedy may have introduced the legislation, and if you consider the author of the bill ownership, then it was his bill, but that's not what I'm disputing.

I'm glad you are at least giving the man credit with at least coming up with the policy. I could use another analogy: the 2 million jobs lost from January to April 2009. Obama's fault right?

This is wrong; at best it was 50-50. Kennedy got it through the House, a respectable achievement to be sure, but he couldn't get it out of the Senate. Hell, he couldn't even get the Senate to finish hearings on the bill. The chances of the bill passing through the Senate were so bad, in fact, that JFK's staff considered it dead. Johnson came in, got it through the Senate, then signed it. Johnson cut taxes.

And how much of that was because of the assassination? Do you not believe that it cleared the Senate to honor JFK's legacy?

The statement "JFK cut taxes" is wrong. The statement "JFK's bill cut taxes" is correct.

And this is why PD is saying you are arguing semantics.

From any outside observer, you are appearing to be the disingenuous party here. I'm not a boy.

It's an expression of speech.

 

[The Librarian]

I'm glad you are at least giving the man credit with at least coming up with the policy. I could use another analogy: the 2 million jobs lost from January to April 2009. Obama's fault right?

No? He didn't do anything to cause those two million jobs to be lost. Your analogies aren't all that great.

And how much of that was because of the assassination? Do you not believe that it cleared the Senate to honor JFK's legacy?

No. It cleared the Senate because Johnson got the federal budget to be under $100 billion, realizing that you cannot move the immovable Harry Byrd. Once Senator Byrd confirmed the numbers for himself he very much took ownership of the bill while it was in the Senate. He sped up the hearings and the Budget Committee passed the bill, where it then went to the floor and passed the Senate.

And this is why PD is saying you are arguing semantics.

It's not. One implies Kennedy passed the bill. The other does not. That's my problem with it, is all.

It's an expression of speech.

Very well, ma'am.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

It's not. One implies Kennedy passed the bill. The other does not. That's my problem with it, is all.

Then you are arguing for no reason and over semantics. Laffer and PD never said JFK passed the bill himself. They do give him credit for the policy because as you like to say:

The statement "JFK's bill cut taxes" is correct.

 

[Black Mamba]

Here's Megyn Kelly going after Erick Erickson for his comments.

Wow, she really was upset about his comments. Personally, I think Erickson and Dobbs was an insult to women, not liberal ideology. Conservatives should have been just as upset.

Lou Dobbs came off as a major asshole and mysoginist pig in that debate when he called her the O' Dominate one.

 

[The Librarian]

Then you are arguing for no reason and over semantics. Laffer and PD never said JFK passed the bill himself. They do give him credit for the policy because as you like to say:

I'm not. They said JFK cut taxes. He didn't.

 

[Link]

no

I get that there's no good solution that won't infringe on freedom of the press, but should Fox and these other sites be able to outright lie about whatever and not even have to worry about any kind of credibility? I get there's always going to be bias in reporting, but it's just blatant at this point.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I'm not. They said JFK cut taxes. He didn't.

"Some men you just can't reach."

Spoiler

This is from a movie and not in regards to your gender.

 

[The Librarian]

"Some men you just can't reach."

Spoiler

This is from a movie and not in regards to your gender.

Then how does it relate to me? As you said, a fair metric to assigning recognition should be attributed to whoever did the "lion's share" of the work. As it is clear that it wasn't Kennedy who did the majority of the work, you can't easily attribute the action to him. Kennedy didn't cut taxes; Johnson did with Kennedy's bill.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Here's Megyn Kelly going after Erick Erickson for his comments.

Fun.

Of course, to some this is just proof that Fox is fair and balanced...

 

[speculawyer]

Here's Megyn Kelly going after Erick Erickson for his comments.

Here is a weird thing about conservative ideology. Conservatives who are knowledgeable about a particular area will say that conservatives are wrong about their particular area of knowledge but agree with them on other things.

-Veteran Military man Colin Powell disagreed with the GOP about the Iraq war (and about their stance toward black people)
-Conservative biologists will disagree with the conservative ideology about evolution.
-Conservative scientists will disagree with the conservative ideology on climate change
-Megyn Kelly will disagree with the conservative ideology on women
-Gay conservatives will say they got the gay thing wrong but conservative ideology in other places

I always find it strange that they can believe that conservative ideology gets their particular speciality wrong but is right everywhere else.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Then how does it relate to me? As you said, a fair metric to assigning recognition should be attributed to whoever did the "lion's share" of the work. As it is clear that it wasn't Kennedy who did the majority of the work, you can't easily attribute the action to him. Kennedy didn't cut taxes; Johnson did with Kennedy's bill.

You keep swinging wildly from giving Kennedy some credit to no credit. Why don't we do an experiment and have you quantify how much credit on a 10-1 scale? But I guess I'll save us the trouble and put your answer to less than 5 because you will ultimately argue that the policy vision doesn't matter and the execution was all LBJ. And as the clip from the movie states, "We have a failure to communicate, and I can't reach you." You should watch it, Cool Hand Luke.

Edit: You could also say that Harry Byrd was more responsible for its passage. Because as you argued you needed his approval. So what did LBJ actually do beside being a middle man who took one guy's idea (JFK) and cut a deal with another (Byrd).

 

[Oblivion]

Finished watching the tax the rich debate. Krugman's opening comments must have really Newtered Newt cause he didn't even attempt to defend his record in the 90s, which is a pretty big deal cause he never, ever, EVER fails to bring that up when talking tax policy. Instead, he spent the whole debate simply arguing from a moral standpoint, and throwing out strawman after strawman ("I don't want government going after people saying they need to be punished for daring to be successful").

Laffer, for his part, was pretty much robotic in repeating his talking points over and over again, no matter how many times Krugman and Greek guy tried to rebut him.

Very enjoyable debate overall, and Krugman was definitely stole the show (guess the asswhooping he received from Scarborough made him study harder this time around). I just wish the format was more open-ended. Would have made it easier to see Laffer squirm when directly asked to respond to the decades we had higher taxes and higher growth.

 

[The Librarian]

You keep swinging wildly from giving Kennedy some credit to no credit. Why don't we do an experiment and have you quantify how much credit on a 10-1 scale? But I guess I'll save us the trouble and put your answer to less than 5 because you will ultimately argue that the policy vision doesn't matter and the execution was all LBJ. And as the clip from the movie states, "We have a failure to communicate, and I can't reach you." You should watch it, Cool Hand Luke.

I'm not swinging at all. Kennedy got it through the House, an admirable effort, then Johnson came in and did what Kennedy's staff thought was impossible to do. Johnson was the one that got it done. He cut taxes. This is like saying just because Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Bill it means he gets credit for passing it. Johnson there, too, passed Civil Rights through Kennedy's bill. As for Cool Hand Luke, I haven't an interest in watching the clip, General Ripper.

 

[pigeon]

You guys know he's been dead for fifty years, right?

 

[The Librarian]

You guys know he's been dead for fifty years, right?

Shut up, John McCormack!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not swinging at all. Kennedy got it through the House, an admirable effort, then Johnson came in and did what Kennedy's staff thought was impossible to do. Johnson was the one that got it done. He cut taxes. This is like saying just because Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Bill it means he gets credit for passing it. Johnson there, too, passed Civil Rights through Kennedy's bill. As for Cool Hand Luke, I haven't an interest in watching the clip, General Ripper.

That's General Turgidson.

This is General Ripper:

As infuriating as I found my recent argument with Dax, I think she's really right here, btw (appart from confusing the Generals). It's semantics, if anything, to say *JLK* did it.

 

[The Librarian]

That's General Turgidson.

This is General Ripper:


As infuriating as I found my recent argument with Dax, I think she's really right here, btw (appart from confusing the Generals). It's semantics, if anything, to say *JLK* did it.

I know. I meant to call him the crazy general.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I know. I meant to call him the crazy general.

Turgidson wasn't that much less crazy...

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I know. I meant to call him the crazy general.

But aren't we all crazy.

 

[The Librarian]

Turgidson wasn't that much less crazy...

Too true!

But aren't we all crazy.

Yeah. If anything I'd be your crazy girlfriend.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Too true!

Yeah. If anything I'd be your crazy girlfriend.

You can call me Buck then.

 

[Black Mamba]

“The Hispanics who have come in like this will vote Democrat and there’s not the slightest bit of evidence that they will vote Republican,” Schlafly said on “Focus Today.” “And the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes, the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election and there are millions of them.”

Schlafly told PolicyMic she believes that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election because “his drop-off from white voters was tremendous” and the GOP doesn’t “know how to relate to grassroots Americans.

lol

 

[The Librarian]

Didn't Romney get a record number of white voters?

You can call me Buck then.

That outfit is so cute.

 

[Oblivion]

Not that I want to get into the JFK v. LBJ argument, but if anyone cares about Matt Yglesias opinion, he seems to credit JFK for those tax cuts:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/31/straw_man_economics.html

 

[Link]

lol

She'll be lucky to still be alive by the next election.

 

[Plinko]

Mark Levin just came out in favor of de-criminilizing weed. What the hell is goin on?

Isn't he starting to skew libertarian? That makes sense.

 

[rocketknight]

Here is a weird thing about conservative ideology. Conservatives who are knowledgeable about a particular area will say that conservatives are wrong about their particular area of knowledge but agree with them on other things.

-Veteran Military man Colin Powell disagreed with the GOP about the Iraq war (and about their stance toward black people)
-Conservative biologists will disagree with the conservative ideology about evolution.
-Conservative scientists will disagree with the conservative ideology on climate change
-Megyn Kelly will disagree with the conservative ideology on women
-Gay conservatives will say they got the gay thing wrong but conservative ideology in other places

I always find it strange that they can believe that conservative ideology gets their particular speciality wrong but is right everywhere else.

This is pretty good, laid out like that.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Didn't Romney get a record number of white voters?


That outfit is so cute.

I'm pretty sure that he did.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm pretty sure that he did.

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the total white vote declined. So the thinking is that there are white people who have a proven willingness to vote out there and that Republicans have a better shot at winning more of them (even though they're mostly disaffected '08 Obama voters) than at winning other groups. The sad thing is they're probably right.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the total white vote declined. So the thinking is that there are white people who have a proven willingness to vote out there and that Republicans have a better shot at winning more of them (even though they're mostly disaffected '08 Obama voters) than at winning other groups. The sad thing is they're probably right.

They're probably right, but at the same time if those republicans weren't motivated to go to the polls and vote against Barack Hussein Obama, I can't imagine them being motivated in four years to go to the polls against whichever white candidate democrats select. Not accusing them of racism, just saying Obama is clearly the worst thing ever to most republicans, they had no logical excuse to stay home last year.

 

[GaimeGuy]

no

Lying and passing false news off as a fact is basically committing civil/social fraud.

 

[Gotchaye]

Lying and passing false news off as a fact is basically committing civil/social fraud.

Sure. It's the enforcement that's tricky.

 

[el retorno]

I get that there's no good solution that won't infringe on freedom of the press, but should Fox and these other sites be able to outright lie about whatever and not even have to worry about any kind of credibility? I get there's always going to be bias in reporting, but it's just blatant at this point.

the government should not get involved. I have no problem with other companies or groups of people boycotting or knocking their credibility. and there is bias in a lot of reporting (not to fox's level but its a silly thing to complain about)

europe has worse partisan news and has for years, its not killing them. the problem is government not the media

Lying and passing false news off as a fact is basically committing civil/social fraud.

free speech. people can say whatever they want to. who determines what is lying or false news?

 

[The Librarian]

June is LGBT Pride Month: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-proclaims-june-as-lgbt-pride-month

 

[empty vessel]

free speech. people can say whatever they want to. who determines what is lying or false news?

12 jurors, presumably. What is the difference between false advertising/fraud by a media/entertainment corporation and false advertising/fraud by any other corporation?

It is not true that people can say anything they want to. If you tell me a car I buy from you has no problems, but in reality you know that it does, you are making a speech act that can subject you to liability.

Plus, entities created and endowed with power by government like corporations ought not have constitutional rights. The charters that endow them with State power can be revoked for any non-arbitrary reasons.

 

[RDreamer]

June is LGBT Pride Month: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-proclaims-june-as-lgbt-pride-month

Why isn't there a heterosexual pride month!?

Spoiler

Unfortunately I was probably not the first to respond to Obama like that, and even sadder those were probably serious

 

[The Librarian]

Every day's a great day to like the opposite sex.

 

[Link]

Wasn't June already LGBT Pride Month?

 

[el retorno]

12 jurors, presumably. What is the difference between false advertising/fraud by a media/entertainment corporation and false advertising/fraud by any other corporation?

It is not true that people can say anything they want to. If you tell me a car I buy from you has no problems, but in reality you know that it does, you are making a speech act that can subject you to liability.

Plus, entities created and endowed with power by government like corporations ought not have constitutional rights. The charters that endow them with State power can be revoked for any non-arbitrary reasons.

because fox news isn't "selling" a product they're expressing ideas. telling you misleading facts doesn't "hurt you" unlike providing misleading information about a product which would lead you into a commercial transaction.

they are still liable for slander and libel and if they were selling a product. but them misleading about obama or the democrats doesn't harm anybody in a legal sense.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

June is LGBT Pride Month: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-proclaims-june-as-lgbt-pride-month

I'm going to Disney tomorrow. Its gay day or something. Its gonna be fabulous

Spoiler

im not gay just the only time i can use my passes before they expire

I think even Disney is unofficially welcoming it now. It used to hate it.

 

[The Librarian]

Wasn't June already LGBT Pride Month?

Point is it's further proof of Obama being a dictator.

 

[rocketknight]

June is LGBT Pride Month: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-proclaims-june-as-lgbt-pride-month

LGBT Pride Month

I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists. – Proclamation by U.S President Barack Obama, May 31, 2011[31]

The month of June was chosen for LGBT Pride Month to commemorate the Stonewall riots, which occurred at the end of June 1969. As a result, many pride events are held during this month to recognize the impact LGBT people have had in the world. Brenda Howard is known as the "Mother of Pride", for her work in coordinating the first LGBT Pride march, and she also originated the idea for a week-long series of events around Pride Day which became the genesis of the annual LGBT Pride celebrations that are now held around the world every June.[15][16] Additionally, Howard along with fellow LGBT rights activists Robert A. Martin (aka Donny the Punk) and L. Craig Schoonmaker are credited with popularizing the word "Pride" to describe these festivities.[17] As LGBT rights activist Tom Limoncelli put it, "The next time someone asks you why LGBT Pride marches exist or why [LGBT] Pride Month is June tell them 'A bisexual woman named Brenda Howard thought it should be.'" [18]

On five occasions, the President of the United States has officially declared a Pride Month. First, President Bill Clinton declared June "Gay & Lesbian Pride Month" on June 2, 2000.[32] Then, in 2009,[33] 2010,[34] 2011,[31] and 2012,[35] President Barack Obama declared June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

My PFLAG chapter was already planning stuff for June anywho. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, OBAMA.

 

[GaimeGuy]

because fox news isn't "selling" a product they're expressing ideas. telling you misleading facts doesn't "hurt you" unlike providing misleading information about a product which would lead you into a commercial transaction.

they are still liable for slander and libel and if they were selling a product. but them misleading about obama or the democrats doesn't harm anybody in a legal sense.

It harms EVERYONE because it corrupts the sociopolitical environment of our country.

It leads to irresponsible policy, discrimination, and faith-based initiatives which decrease the standard of living for all americans.

The propaganda about death panels, for instance, resulted in changes to provisions and rules concerning end-of-life counseling, and these changes have a negative effect on estate planning, which causes all sorts of legal problems down the line when inheritance disputes occur.

Charities and organizations which help the poor (like Planned Parenthood and ACORN) end up being targeted for corporate assassination.

And so on.


Misinformation causes bad policy. Information that is demonstrably false should, once demonstrably false, no longer be disseminated by the media as factual truth. That is their social duty as the press.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wasn't June already LGBT Pride Month?

I guess they're having both.

 

[el retorno]

It harms EVERYONE because it corrupts the sociopolitical environment of our country.

It leads to irresponsible policy, discrimination, and faith-based initiatives which decrease the standard of living for all americans.

The propaganda about death panels, for instance, resulted in changes to provisions and rules concerning end-of-life counseling, and these changes have a negative effect on estate planning, which causes all sorts of legal problems down the line when inheritance disputes occur.

Charities and organizations which help the poor (like Planned Parenthood and ACORN) end up being targeted for corporate assassination.

And so on.


Misinformation causes bad policy. Information that is demonstrably false should, once demonstrably false, no longer be disseminated by the media as factual truth. That is their social duty as the press.

That's your opinion (which I agree with). Your going to have a hard time proving that and its a vague and amorphous definition of damaging.

Fox isn't the problem though, government policy and money in politics are

 

[empty vessel]

That's your opinion (which I agree with). Your going to have a hard time proving that and its a vague and amorphous definition of damaging.

Fox isn't the problem though, government policy and money in politics are

Fox is part of the problem. Media has been deregulated specifically to empower corporate business at the expense of the public. The chamber of commerce, at least, certainly understands the importance of media. If you control a person's mind via controlling the information he receives, you can control his vote. Media is not unimportant.

That said, I agree with you that money in politics is a fundamental problem. But media helps corporate business interests keep those policies entrenched. That's why they were smart enough to "deregulate" media in the first place.