Biden rips Bush Admin, says charges are 'On the table'.

[General Zod]

You may doubt that persecuting presidnet Bush (another case - why don't I scream foul when people call President Bush 'The Shrub'; its no more or less offensive than calling Barry Obama, B Hussein Obama - after all, I called H Norman Schwartkopf that to his face and he's a lot bigger than me) would end the republic.

Because I had to nitpick this, are you seriously suggesting that placing emphasis on someone's middle name in a fashion used by crypto-racists to spread the "lol Obama is secret Muslim!!11!" meme is somehow even remotely comparable to a play on words that a 3rd grader can make with no racist elements at all? I've never heard anyone use his name in that fashion who wasn't being a racist douchenozzle in the process.

[Stuart]

Because I had to nitpick this, are you seriously suggesting that placing emphasis on someone's middle name in a fashion used by crypto-racists to spread the "lol Obama is secret Muslim!!11!" meme is somehow even remotely comparable to a play on words that a 3rd grader can make with no racist elements at all? I've never heard anyone use his name in that fashion who wasn't being a racist douchenozzle in the process.

I would say its no worse that referring to a man who was crippled in the service of his country as "The Gimp". In this case, referring to Obama as B Hussein Obama was a gibe on my part aimed at a specific audience. If you notice, normally I refer to him as either Obama or Barry Obama (which is what he's called on the Hill). My point remains, if one is going to use abusive terminology for one set of politicians, one cannot complain when that set turn around and return the compliment. Which is worse is a matter of opinion. The better way of doing things is not to descend to such levels at all. For that reason I also condemn people who call Democrats 'Demorats' or 'Dungbats', it gets in the way of arguing a situation rationally.

[Surlethe]

The fact that tax cuts increased income is a proven fact.

Not true in the slightest. FactCheck.org has an article about that, with an extensive list of citations if you would like to question their veracity. In fact, government revenues were depressed by $107 billion, $107 billion, and $135 billion in 2004, 2005, and 2006 respectively.

In general, as I'm sure you know, tax cuts increase revenue only when they cause the economy to grow sufficiently. To borrow an analogy, reducing the government's slice of the pie causes the pie to grow, so that it's possible for the government's slice to grow in magnitude while decreasing in percentage. However, there's a diminishing marginal returns effect, which means that the Laffer curve (graphing revenue as a function of tax rate) is inflected down with a single peak. The empirical evidence I have just linked to quite clearly demonstrates that we are to the left of the peak - to raise revenue, we raise taxes.

Note also that Obama will not raise taxes. This is a common misconception (and often deliberate lie put forward by Republican party leaders, who should know better). So when we're talking about an Obama administration and comparing it to a McCain administration, we need to bear in mind that both will be cutting taxes. McCain will be cutting more on average because he will be cutting more rich peoples' taxes, but for those Americans making less than some $600k, Obama will cut more taxes. Link - pdf Moreover, Obama is actually projected to be more fiscally restrained than McCain (although it's a relative comparison): his projected tax cut plan will "only" add some 3.3 trillion to the debt over 10 years, while McCain's will add some $4.5 trillion over the same time period. Link

I added a comma to improve readability.

[Stuart]

Not true in the slightest. FactCheck.org has an article about that, with an extensive list of citations if you would like to question their veracity. In fact, government revenues were depressed by $107 billion, $107 billion, and $135 billion in 2004, 2005, and 2006 respectively.

I'll check that out with some of the economists I know. See what they say, Thanks for the reference - now that is outside opinions I can use.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because I had to nitpick this, are you seriously suggesting that placing emphasis on someone's middle name in a fashion used by crypto-racists to spread the "lol Obama is secret Muslim!!11!" meme is somehow even remotely comparable to a play on words that a 3rd grader can make with no racist elements at all? I've never heard anyone use his name in that fashion who wasn't being a racist douchenozzle in the process.

I would say its no worse that referring to a man who was crippled in the service of his country as "The Gimp". In this case, referring to Obama as B Hussein Obama was a gibe on my part aimed at a specific audience. If you notice, normally I refer to him as either Obama or Barry Obama (which is what he's called on the Hill). My point remains, if one is going to use abusive terminology for one set of politicians, one cannot complain when that set turn around and return the compliment. Which is worse is a matter of opinion. The better way of doing things is not to descend to such levels at all. For that reason I also condemn people who call Democrats 'Demorats' or 'Dungbats', it gets in the way of arguing a situation rationally.

That person - the one who calls McCain "the Gimp" - is not who you are replying to, so I don't know what your point is. In other words, "gibe" indeed, you meant it to be an asshole.

[General Zod]

I would say its no worse that referring to a man who was crippled in the service of his country as "The Gimp". In this case, referring to Obama as B Hussein Obama was a gibe on my part aimed at a specific audience. If you notice, normally I refer to him as either Obama or Barry Obama (which is what he's called on the Hill). My point remains, if one is going to use abusive terminology for one set of politicians, one cannot complain when that set turn around and return the compliment. Which is worse is a matter of opinion. The better way of doing things is not to descend to such levels at all. For that reason I also condemn people who call Democrats 'Demorats' or 'Dungbats', it gets in the way of arguing a situation rationally.

The vast majority of us are smart enough to draw the line at racism, since it's about as creative as shitting yourself and smearing it on the wall. But hey, you want to keep being a racist donkey fucker like the rest of the douchenozzles spreading the "secret Muslim" meme go right ahead.

[Stuart]

That person - the one who calls McCain "the Gimp" - is not who you are replying to, so I don't know what your point is. In other words, "gibe" indeed, you meant it to be an asshole.

I'm aware of that; however the use itself didn't provole the same kind of reaction did it? And its the reaction I'm aiming at. As for motivation, I was needling people (agreed) to get a specific reaction. But, its not part of my standard language as you are well aware. Say again, my usual phrasing is "Obama" or "Barry Obama".

[Surlethe]

Not true in the slightest. FactCheck.org has an article about that, with an extensive list of citations if you would like to question their veracity. In fact, government revenues were depressed by $107 billion, $107 billion, and $135 billion in 2004, 2005, and 2006 respectively.

I'll check that out with some of the economists I know. See what they say, Thanks for the reference - now that is outside opinions I can use.

No problem. As you can see, they cite the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office -- bipartisan and nonpartisan, respectively, organizations. Speaking of economists' opinions, my introductory econ textbook has a short discussion of the Laffer curve which makes the same point I did: US taxes are to the left of the peak, so lowering taxes will not raise revenues. I can transcribe that and give a source if you'd like.

[Stuart]

The vast majority of us are smart enough to draw the line at racism, since it's about as creative as shitting yourself and smearing it on the wall. But hey, you want to keep being a racist donkey fucker like the rest of the douchenozzles spreading the "secret Muslim" meme go right ahead.

You see, this is the interesting point, where does one draw the line here? And is the reference used actually racist? Certainly, it could be construed that way but it could also be regarded as bringing somebody's name into parallel with various other American usages. In my opinion the term racist is clearly inapplicable since the name Hussein could be argued to indicate Muslim background and Muslims can be - and are - from any particualr racial background. So, labelling somebody as a Muslim could be regarded as religionist I suppose. So, if its religionism that you're worried about, why do you not object to people being labelled as "fundies"?

And all that's presupposing that refering to somebody as a Muslim is an insult. I don't happen to regard it that way and see that labelling someeby as a Muslim is any more insulting than labelling them as a Christian or a Buddhist (or any other religious grouping come to that). It's simply a description of religious beliefs.

In the case of Barry Obama, his personal religious beliefs are quite clear and very well-established. That makes implications that he's anything else painfully absurd - it's only the excess over-reaction that gives it any credibility. You see where I'm coming from? By using that specific terminology I've neatly diverted you from the real constitutional issues involved in this subject. It didn't work when I used it at HPCA, worked like a charm here.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That person - the one who calls McCain "the Gimp" - is not who you are replying to, so I don't know what your point is. In other words, "gibe" indeed, you meant it to be an asshole.

I'm aware of that; however the use itself didn't provole the same kind of reaction did it? And its the reaction I'm aiming at. As for motivation, I was needling people (agreed) to get a specific reaction. But, its not part of my standard language as you are well aware. Say again, my usual phrasing is "Obama" or "Barry Obama".

My point is, why are you upset if people think you're an asshole, when that's exactly what you were trying to do? I suppose perhaps you're upset they're insinuating you're a racist. I don't think you're a racist, but I do think telltale mentions of his middle name is a racist dog whistle.

[Stuart]

Speaking of economists' opinions, my introductory econ textbook has a short discussion of the Laffer curve which makes the same point I did: US taxes are to the left of the peak, so lowering taxes will not raise revenues. I can transcribe that and give a source if you'd like.

No, I'll take your word for it. You're an honorable guy. But, I'm not an economist so I'll run the information past somebody who is. Noce thing about my job, I can find experts just by picking up the phone.

[Illuminatus Primus]

By using that specific terminology I've neatly diverted you from the real constitutional issues involved in this subject. It didn't work when I used it at HPCA, worked like a charm here.

I'm pretty sure deliberate discussion derailment with emotional goading and needling is exactly the kind of thing being discussed as detracting from the quality of discourse in N&P in the Senate, and is often known as "trolling." Not that I think you're a troll generally speaking, but it bares repeating, what is your goal in deliberately provoking people?

[Stuart]

My point is, why are you upset if people think you're an asshole, when that's exactly what you were trying to do? I suppose perhaps you're upset they're insinuating you're a racist. I don't think you're a racist, but I do think telltale mentions of his middle name is a racist dog whistle.

I'm not upset, if anything I'm amused at the way people react (studying the way people react to situations is part of my job description). My main argumentative point is that one side can't complain if they throw insults (even third grade ones which I think was a fair description) around and other people reply in kind. Remember, insults are intended to hurt so if people throw them, they can expect to get hurtful ones thrown back.

That's why its better not to start.

[Stuart]

I'm pretty sure deliberate discussion derailment with emotional goading and needling is exactly the kind of thing being discussed as detracting from the quality of discourse in N&P in the Senate, and is often known as "trolling." Not that I think you're a troll generally speaking, but it bares repeating, what is your goal in deliberately provoking people?

If you remmber, that section was actually quoted by somebody else and was originally posted on a different board. What I've done is picked up on some of thr issues that other people's reactions to it have raised. Normally I don't bother doing so, but in this case, I thought the way the constitutional issue got buried under name-valling was rather interesting. So, I picked it up.

Yes, I was rude to Chardok, (you must admit that is unusual for me) but he did rather ask for it.

I haven't derailed the discussion at all, other people did. My main emphasis throughout is on the constitutional issues raised by the criminalization of party politics (plus replying to people who addressed me directly).

Now, to the constitutional issues.

[General Zod]

I'm not upset, if anything I'm amused at the way people react (studying the way people react to situations is part of my job description). My main argumentative point is that one side can't complain if they throw insults (even third grade ones which I think was a fair description) around and other people reply in kind. Remember, insults are intended to hurt so if people throw them, they can expect to get hurtful ones thrown back.

That's why its better not to start.

There's a difference between insults that poke fun of someone's failing and insults that are effectively racist dogwhistles. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend this is hilarious.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I do agree that criminalization of party politics is a straight ticket to Wiemar-land. More real discussion later when I don't have work.

[Stuart]

There's a difference between insults that poke fun of someone's failing and insults that are effectively racist dogwhistles. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend this is hilarious.

I thought we dealt with the fact that the comment in question wasn't racist but could be considered religionist. However. You see, what we have here is a fundamental difference in perceptions. I don't regard a comment that indicates somebody's religion as being abusive, Its a fact. As I said, we know what religion Obama is so the whole issue is moot. However, the insult aimed at John McCain is, to me, a much more serious one (especially due to its sexual connotations). I come from a background where the military are honored; to me insultinga man because of crippling injuries he received in the service of my country is far more serious that a simple indication of somebody's relligion (which is obviously not serious because the true situation is well known)

[Stuart]

I do agree that criminalization of party politics is a straight ticket to Wiemar-land. More real discussion later when I don't have work.

I'll look forward to that although I don't think we actually disagree on constitutional problem or what is needed to solve it.

[Darth Wong]

There's a difference between insults that poke fun of someone's failing and insults that are effectively racist dogwhistles. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend this is hilarious.

I thought we dealt with the fact that the comment in question wasn't racist but could be considered religionist. However. You see, what we have here is a fundamental difference in perceptions. I don't regard a comment that indicates somebody's religion as being abusive, Its a fact. As I said, we know what religion Obama is so the whole issue is moot. However, the insult aimed at John McCain is, to me, a much more serious one (especially due to its sexual connotations). I come from a background where the military are honored; to me insultinga man because of crippling injuries he received in the service of my country is far more serious that a simple indication of somebody's relligion (which is obviously not serious because the true situation is well known)

To me, "insults" are irrelevant. If the man is such a tough guy, he can take an insult. Misleading statements, on the other hand, are very serious business. When someone attempts to mislead the public, that is far worse than "insults", which are a matter of courtesy but not dishonesty.

I would take an honest but rude presentation over a polite but dishonest one any day. These people are trying to mislead people into believing that Obama is somehow connected with MidEast terrorism; that is FAR worse than "the gimp" which is highly insulting but does not create any misleading impressions.

As for refusing to prosecute legal breaches committed by political figures, I don't see the reasoning. Bush didn't just break the law; he spat on it. Clinton, for all his flaws, at least showed up for questioning and attempted to answer questions, albeit rather dishonestly, which is why he's still the butt of jokes today. Bush's cronies either stonewalled or simply ignored Congress, and thumbed their noses at the laws they were breaking, almost with a collective smirk. Just how much contempt can an administration show for the law before the law is used against them?

[General Zod]

I thought we dealt with the fact that the comment in question wasn't racist but could be considered religionist. However. You see, what we have here is a fundamental difference in perceptions. I don't regard a comment that indicates somebody's religion as being abusive, Its a fact.

Again, I've never seen Obama's name used in that fashion except by crypto-racist twats wanting to either emphasize its connection to a certain recently killed dictator, the secret Muslim bullshit or both. Unless you're trying to allude to either one of those I can't possibly fathom why you'd use it in such a convention when the connotation is well known.

As I said, we know what religion Obama is so the whole issue is moot. However, the insult aimed at John McCain is, to me, a much more serious one (especially due to its sexual connotations). I come from a background where the military are honored; to me insultinga man because of crippling injuries he received in the service of my country is far more serious that a simple indication of somebody's relligion (which is obviously not serious because the true situation is well known)

Since I've never used "The Gimp" as an insult that I can recall, and I'm certainly not defending it, I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that it's a weak insult.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike, and it especially goes for "McSame" as a nickname. However, I do think as a matter of courtesy (as opposed to dishonesty), "the Gimp" is in shockingly poor taste even by my low standards. I do see to an extent where Stuart et al is coming from that some on the board feel free rein to talk shit because they expect no turnabout. If "the Gimp" is acceptable, than calling Obama "the Cokehead" or "Former Cokehead" would be equally fair.

[Stuart]

These people are trying to mislead people into believing that Obama is somehow connected with MidEast terrorism; that is FAR worse than "the gimp" which is highly insulting but does not create any misleading impressions.

That is a very fair point and to be honest (and slightly embarrassed) its one that had never ocurred to me. In the original post (not here) I was poking fun at people whi carry on with the "Obama is a secret Muslim) line when the evidence was not only clear and incontrovertible that he wasn't but his Christian links were actually causing a lot of problems for him (time when that post was written is significant). The idea that Obama might be linked with Islamic terrorism is so manifestly stupid that it never ocurred to me. I don't read the kind of published material that could come up with that garbage, the dyspepsia it causes tends to spoil my lunch.

So, advised of that potential link of which I was unaware, I would repudiate the nomenclature in question since it would indeed be seriously and unforgiveably misleading. And, if the implied terrorist link did give offense, I apologize for it.

Again, Mike I tend to agree on the insults comment. My only point is that if one side throws them, they can't complain if they get a few back. Personally, I have a good chuckle at them.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, I know, it sounds incredibly stupid to think that someone could connect Obama to MidEast terrorism. But unfortunately, there are plenty of people who do precisely that. No matter how dumb you think the average hick is, he can always surprise you by going lower.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I said at the start that Obama was just a Chicago machine politician. That said, Stuart, consider that having a Black man as President might be worth to destroy many of the fundamental conceptions the Black community has for itself, and force them to Stand Up and be counted in society. We might, for four or eight years of Chicago machine-politics at the top, finally see black people integrated with the broad norms of American society, and wouldn't that quite possibly be worth those years?

That said, I've withdrawn from active participation in political processes permanently, and on reflection won't change that. Though the harsh anti-Russian stance of McCain infuriates me, in the end, to many people end up thinking badly of me in my social circles these days no matter which way I vote, so I'll just abstain from it. Though it does infuriate me that the fools in both the Bush and Clinton administrations have succeeded in so thoroughly alienating Russia as to unnecessarily create another enemy--I thought that in 1999, and now it's coming true.

I do however have a question.

The fundamental change from me and everyone else on HPCA started back when I realized that continued economic growth and prosperity were not necessarily the moral goals of a society--that stability and support for the citizenry might indeed be preferred in the long term. This view was reflected by much reading on how conservatives in the 18th century regarded themselves, and I would want to know it sometime--it would be an interesting debate to have on HPCA when we get the new board--what the fundamental moral justifications for a growth economy are? Instead of debating over the economic details of a growth economy itself a more relevant topic might be whether or not one is necessary.

[General Zod]

Yeah, I know, it sounds incredibly stupid to think that someone could connect Obama to MidEast terrorism. But unfortunately, there are plenty of people who do precisely that. No matter how dumb you think the average hick is, he can always surprise you by going lower.

Fun fact: 15% of Democratic voters think Obama is Muslim.

This poll is a bit out of date so that might have been changed, but it's still an eye opener as to the dumber side of the Democratic spectrum.