Obama's job approval

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No Brian I am trying to figure out what the hell you are referring to. You call names but dont have any actual references or examples to back those names up.

I am inconsistent? Where am I inconsistent? Give me one example. Just one.

You make generalized comments and then dont even have the balls to back them up. So you are further left than I am right. Why are you better or more relevant than me?

I dont try to paint myself as any kind of fiscal centrist. If you understood the financial topics you would already know that.

You are a radical liberal. You stand lockstep on every issue with the left. Good for you. That doesnt make you any better, smarter, or more honest than the vast majority of the country that lies somewhere right of your position.

Interesting you yap about shifting the debate and topic when that is exactly what your posts have done. You have made me the topic. You didnt contribute to the discussion about the topic, you got mad because I said you are still blaming Bush. Which apparently struck a nerve. LOL

I am going today to register as an independent just to try to make your head explode.

No, see, all you've done in post after post is change the subject and misrepresent what I'm saying, which is creating a straw man argument that is easy for you to counter.

That you liked Bush? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue.

That you dislike Obama? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue.

That you are a small business owner to whom I owe all my success and good fortune? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue. (See how creating a straw man works?)

Gay rights and abortion? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue.

But when you just "read" (if you even are) everything I'm typing and then try to pretend that those are the points I'm making, then you can yap away and defeat those talking points, then you win. Congratulations. You've defeated the arguments I'm not making.

The point, which I'll say again, is not at all that you dislike what Obama is doing. I don't care. And then you say things like “I’m going to continue to use my right as an American to criticize the President.” Good for you…again not the point, but quite patriotic and a good way to once again shift the debate to make it seem like I’m trying to stop you from criticizing him. Hell, I’m not even trying to stop wackos on your side from bringing guns to public rallies about the President.

I’m not “mad” that you say I’m blaming Bush, because on several topics, I still do, and have no problems with that. The problem is that you’ve become so comfortable, as people did with shouting “Bush Derangement Syndrome” when people offered any substantive criticism of Bush to avoid having to deal with the issues, to saying “oh you’re just blaming Bush still,” even when NOBODY IS BLAMING BUSH.

It’s not deflecting from one issue to another to point out the obvious fact that you had little to no financial criticism offered up anywhere until Obama became President, even when Bush was spending plenty of money. (Now, before you go straw man crazy, as I’m sure you will, I’m not BLAMING BUSH for spending money, I’m saying you only care now.) And now that you’re posting like an incredible machine about Obama and money, one could reasonably believe that financial issues are of the utmost importance to you – which is exactly why it strikes me as quite odd that you didn’t seem all that interested in wasteful spending until Obama was doing it. You can offer up whatever you’d like in response to that, but it’s just simple observation of how you current posting seems to reflect a newfound importance of certain issues that were of no such importance 18 months ago.

Of course I stand on the Left. More left of the “Left,” actually. And that doesn’t make me smarter or more important (straw man #86, breaking records like Secretariat here!), it makes me honest.

I’m sure you feel like you’re wasting your time with this, as am I, because you won’t even accurately represent what I’m saying in your responses…again, a typical tactic employed with about an 80/20 split by your side rather than mine. Ie, socialized medicine = death panels. It’s easy to win arguments when you’re not even arguing them honestly and you’re not even arguing the points your opponents are making. That’s what a straw man argument is, which I’m sure you know, as you’ve become quite adept as using them with nearly unbelievable frequency.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

THAT should DO it!

It sure would, if more than 10% of that post actually accurately represented anything I've said, I'd be more than happy to concede Timm.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Putting words in my mouth once again.

Those are all commendable professions that have about 1% of the economic impact of small business owners in this country. You know the people who employ the majority of that same working class?

Try to have relevant comments at the very least

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You said that small business owners " basically carry this country" which is of course....one giant load of crap. No one group of people "carries" the rest of the country. Would this country function far differently if all of the small business owners in the country suddenly vanished tomorrow? Well....yeah of course. But the same is true for dozens of other professions. It isn't all about economic impact. But on that particular subject, in my opinion, your sugestion that teachers have minimal econominc impact on the country is taking such a narrow view of what "economic impact" means that it boggles the mind. Do they pay a lot of taxes or employ others? No. Does that mean they don't have a huge effect on the nation's economy? Absolutely not.

As for employing the working class, your argument is that small business owners "carry" the country because they employ the working class. Fine. But the same argument could easily be flipped. The working class carries the small business owners because without laborers and employees, most of those small businesses would fail. Does that mean that working-class people are actually the ones that "carry" the country? I imagine some on the left would say yes to that, while most of those on the right would scoff.
Personally, I don't see any one group of people "carrying" anything.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It sure would, if more than 10% of that post actually accurately represented anything I've said, I'd be more than happy to concede Timm.

I think you presume too much to know the mind of the people you duel with....Chuck and I are not the same, just as you and GBBob are not the same. Whether you are tying to or not, I think you are being disingenuous
when you trot out the Party line on pretty much everything. Peoples' concepts and priorities can change in 18mos.....mine sure have in the last 10 months.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I think you presume too much to know the mind of the people you duel with....Chuck and I are not the same, just as you and GBBob are not the same. Whether you are tying to or not, I think you are being disingenuous
when you trot out the Party line on pretty much everything. Peoples' concepts and priorities can change in 18mos.....mine sure have in the last 10 months.

I don't care what Chuck thinks, to be honest. I've pointed out Chuck's sudden interest in finances, posting about them at an incredible rate, and he's begun the BDS, Blame Bush retort.

If Chuck said, well yea, finances just really started mattering to me, and wasteful spending just really started mattering to me in the last 10 months, our conversation would have been over.

Pointing out the frequency and topic of Chuck's own posting is not disingenuous in any sense of the word -- it's making an observation, one that seems to continue to strike a nerve with Chuck, such that he seems to see the need to change the subject away from my observation any change he gets by claiming that the reason it happened is because I'm a deranged Bush-hating lefty....which has nothing to do with anything I've said on the topic at all.

And all of the replies are the same -- it'd be like me starting a big commentary on how you and Chuck should stop saying that Obama is mangling the nation's finances because he's a Black Muslim, and Black Muslims can't manage American finances.

I would win that argument....despite the fact that you're not even making it, because I've twisted what you're saying, changed the subject, and created an easy-to-win argument for myself...which is the tactic Chuck has employed in response to me for about six consecutive posts now.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The problem is that you’ve become so comfortable, as people did with shouting “Bush Derangement Syndrome” when people offered any substantive criticism of Bush to avoid having to deal with the issues, to saying “oh you’re just blaming Bush still,” even when NOBODY IS BLAMING BUSH.

.

What? Your guy is still doing it at every turn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...846099654.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Agree or disagree, it's really refreshing to me to see all you guys finally remembering how to pay attention to what the President is doing and actually caring what he's up to.

Thought you had all forgotten. Or maybe the ability to pay attention and think critically just goes in 8-year cycles.A+!

This is your original post. You make no points about the topics. You just take a cryptic potshot at anyone who doesnt agree with Obama.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What? Your guy is still doing it at every turn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...846099654.html

In your responses to me, is naturally what I meant. I blame Bush for plenty, but you don't get to shout "blame bush!!!!" every time you want to avoid a conversation just because someone DOES Blame Bush for certain things, when I'm not actually blaming Bush for something. Back to you using it as a Get Out of Jail Free card in talking to me. Use it when I actually blame it, it loses its punch otherwise, dude.

Take that up with Obama, add it to the reasons you dislike him -- again, that has nothing to do with me, your posting, and this conversation.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is your original post. You make no points about the topics. You just take a cryptic potshot at anyone who doesnt agree with Obama.

Well I give you free license to take potshots at me when I post misleading figures and numbers.

In fact, I would be disappointed if you didn't.

If Obama starts a war during his term, and I say nothing...that would be the equivalent of what you're doing.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I don't care what Chuck thinks, to be honest. I've pointed out Chuck's sudden interest in finances, posting about them at an incredible rate, and he's begun the BDS, Blame Bush retort.

If Chuck said, well yea, finances just really started mattering to me, and wasteful spending just really started mattering to me in the last 10 months, our conversation would have been over.

Pointing out the frequency and topic of Chuck's own posting is not disingenuous in any sense of the word -- it's making an observation, one that seems to continue to strike a nerve with Chuck, such that he seems to see the need to change the subject away from my observation any change he gets by claiming that the reason it happened is because I'm a deranged Bush-hating lefty....which has nothing to do with anything I've said on the topic at all.

And all of the replies are the same -- it'd be like me starting a big commentary on how you and Chuck should stop saying that Obama is mangling the nation's finances because he's a Black Muslim, and Black Muslims can't manage American finances.

I would win that argument....despite the fact that you're not even making it, because I've twisted what you're saying, changed the subject, and created an easy-to-win argument for myself...which is the tactic Chuck has employed in response to me for about six consecutive posts now.

Brian: I realize that I have no idea how your mind works, so why would you bother to post about an arguement that hasn't taken place yet? Pretty eerie, if you ask me. and btw....Obamas' own party has helped him mangle the nations' finances for quite awhile now.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

If Obama starts a war during his term, and I say nothing...that would be the equivalent of what you're doing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Brian: I realize that I have no idea how your mind works, so why would you bother to post about an arguement that hasn't taken place yet? Pretty eerie, if you ask me. and btw....Obamas' own party has helped him mangle the nations' finances for quite awhile now.

The point was it being an example of how to create a straw man where I could completely frame an argument you were making into an easily winnable argument for me, despite the fact that it's not actually what you're even saying.

YOU: Why is Obama ruining the nation's finances?!

ME: WHY DO YOU HATE HIM CUZ HE'S BLACK?!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You said that small business owners " basically carry this country" which is of course....one giant load of crap. No one group of people "carries" the rest of the country. Would this country function far differently if all of the small business owners in the country suddenly vanished tomorrow? Well....yeah of course. But the same is true for dozens of other professions. It isn't all about economic impact. But on that particular subject, in my opinion, your sugestion that teachers have minimal econominc impact on the country is taking such a narrow view of what "economic impact" means that it boggles the mind. Do they pay a lot of taxes or employ others? No. Does that mean they don't have a huge effect on the nation's economy? Absolutely not.

As for employing the working class, your argument is that small business owners "carry" the country because they employ the working class. Fine. But the same argument could easily be flipped. The working class carries the small business owners because without laborers and employees, most of those small businesses would fail. Does that mean that working-class people are actually the ones that "carry" the country? I imagine some on the left would say yes to that, while most of those on the right would scoff.
Personally, I don't see any one group of people "carrying" anything.

Small business isnt a profession. Your argument is stunningly lame. To argue against the economic imact of small business in the USA is pure folly.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

To argue against the economic imact of small business in the USA is pure folly.

Where have I disagreed with the statement that small business owners have a tremendous economic impact on the country? They obviously do, and I have never, and will never dispute that.
That doesn't mean that they "basically carry the country" as you so outrageously and naively claimed.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The point was it being an example of how to create a straw man where I could completely frame an argument you were making into an easily winnable argument for me, despite the fact that it's not actually what you're even saying.

YOU: Why is Obama ruining the nation's finances?!

ME: WHY DO YOU HATE HIM CUZ HE'S BLACK?!

I think that way of communicating is disingenuous at the least.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I don't care what Chuck thinks, to be honest. I've pointed out Chuck's sudden interest in finances, posting about them at an incredible rate, and he's begun the BDS, Blame Bush retort.

If Chuck said, well yea, finances just really started mattering to me, and wasteful spending just really started mattering to me in the last 10 months, our conversation would have been over.

Pointing out the frequency and topic of Chuck's own posting is not disingenuous in any sense of the word -- it's making an observation, one that seems to continue to strike a nerve with Chuck, such that he seems to see the need to change the subject away from my observation any change he gets by claiming that the reason it happened is because I'm a deranged Bush-hating lefty....which has nothing to do with anything I've said on the topic at all.

And all of the replies are the same -- it'd be like me starting a big commentary on how you and Chuck should stop saying that Obama is mangling the nation's finances because he's a Black Muslim, and Black Muslims can't manage American finances.

I would win that argument....despite the fact that you're not even making it, because I've twisted what you're saying, changed the subject, and created an easy-to-win argument for myself...which is the tactic Chuck has employed in response to me for about six consecutive posts now.

My sudden interest in finance. LOL

You gleaned an awful lot of information and theories on one simple sentence. The fact is by mentioning the "previous 8 years" you are in effect using a cousin to the Blame Bush theory. Get off the high horse and realize that you were the one who changed the subject.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

In your responses to me, is naturally what I meant. I blame Bush for plenty, but you don't get to shout "blame bush!!!!" every time you want to avoid a conversation just because someone DOES Blame Bush for certain things, when I'm not actually blaming Bush for something. Back to you using it as a Get Out of Jail Free card in talking to me. Use it when I actually blame it, it loses its punch otherwise, dude.

Take that up with Obama, add it to the reasons you dislike him -- again, that has nothing to do with me, your posting, and this conversation.

Where do I avoid conversation? And since when do you determine exactly what can or cant be said?

it has everything to do with this conversation. If Obama is allowed to blame Bush then why cant I say it?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I think that way of communicating is disingenuous at the least.

Of course it is. That's why I'm hoping Chuck will stop and get to what I'm actually saying at some point before the end of Obama's first term.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where do I avoid conversation? And since when do you determine exactly what can or cant be said?

it has everything to do with this conversation. If Obama is allowed to blame Bush then why cant I say it?

Ah, a cousin to the "you're stifling my free speech!!!!!" meme, which naturally, I’ve done none of.

You can talk about people blaming Bush, even call them on it, but you don’t get to say “STOP BLAMING BUSH” when someone is talking about a topic on which they are NOT BLAMING BUSH and expect people to take it seriously and then get all frustrated when people call you on that $hit.

That’s about the 11th time I’ve said that in the last two days. Not. Computing.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Get off the high horse and realize that you were the one who changed the subject.

LOL. no.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well I give you free license to take potshots at me when I post misleading figures and numbers.

In fact, I would be disappointed if you didn't.

If Obama starts a war during his term, and I say nothing...that would be the equivalent of what you're doing.

No it wouldnt. It simply isnt the same. You cant take complex issues and simply throw a blanket over them and say, OK for or against.