Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I was not trying to get into a partisan debate. But that seems to be all some people posting here want to do. Consider this Exhibit A as to why I don't post here much.

Sometimes club reminds me of Chip Diller at the end of Animal House.



(spree: sound)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I was not trying to get into a partisan debate. But that seems to be all some people posting here want to do.

Um, that's typically what ALL politics boards are for. Some people really don't like that kind of debate. Others enjoy it, just for the pure process of it. I could easily come here, under a different name, and argue 100% opposed to whatever I argue for now. (Heck, maybe I already do.) It's the same impulse that leads people to join debate, where you argue whatever side of an issue you're assigned - it's not so much that you're defending light and truth and freedom, but are exercising and enjoying pure argument.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People already see us as the "reasonable posters" from our respective sides. I think if you move to "link", based upon my request, it only shows the benfits that common courtesy, engagement and a willingness to consider the opinions of others can have.

Let's see you move to counting system that wouldn't make Palm Beach proud.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, that's typically what ALL politics boards are for. Some people really don't like that kind of debate. Others enjoy it, just for the pure process of it. I could easily come here, under a different name, and argue 100% opposed to whatever I argue for now. (Heck, maybe I already do.) It's the same impulse that leads people to join debate, where you argue whatever side of an issue you're assigned - it's not so much that you're defending light and truth and freedom, but are exercising and enjoying pure argument.

Yes, and that is exactly what makes all political thought in our country feel entrenched and partisan, despite the fact that both political parties are towing the same basic line. Anyone here feel like they are changing people's minds? Or are you all just arguing to hear yourselves talk?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I was not trying to get into a partisan debate. But that seems to be all some people posting here want to do. Consider this Exhibit A as to why I don't post here much.

Let's also consider it as Exhibit A in why certain posters here sometimes get referred to as the "Politics Board Virgins".

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Maybe things are great in the upper north (other than the weather, of course), but law firms are still laying people off here and in other major Texas cities. And I don't think that anyone would look at Austin's economy and call it healthy. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with a lot of professional people that I have known that have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. I wish that I could tell you something different.

FWIW, the market isn't great in Chicago for professionals. If you're looking to lateral from BIGLAW to BIGLAW, then I guess the market is picking up. But for the other 80%, it's still not going anywhere. I know of a few recent grads who are working at J.Crew and Pottery Barn.

And FWIW, I'd to like to add that I would never put the blame of the economy on someone as uninfluential as the president.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Yes, and that is exactly what makes all political thought in our country feel entrenched and partisan, despite the fact that both political parties are towing the same basic line. Anyone here feel like they are changing people's minds? Or are you all just arguing to hear yourselves talk?

There have been moments when I have learned something here and when debate has become less confrontational. I've had discussions with both Club and Bilmore at times that were informative, and I suspect each of them will confess to this as well.

But this doesn't happen very often, and particularly since one troll began going on a tear against polygamy, I've come to this board more when I was in a foul mood and wanted to spend a little time slamming a brownshirt to get it out of my system.

(editted to add, I also like to come here to pick up the reading lists from SAM, Ty and Atticus -- usually good stuff!)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We are 1/10 of 1/% over the 103 year unemployment average. The Dems have done a fantastic job of spinning this against Bush, but the truth is far different from reality.

Yep. So, the 2.3 million (or so) net job loss really doesn't matter, because you just can't expect the economy to do as well under Bush as it did under Clinton?

In fact, you can't expect the Bush tax cuts to create 1 million net new jobs, as the President and his advisors confidently and proudly predicted that they would?

Finally, you sure can't expect the economy to grow 3.2 million net new jobs in 2004, as one Bush advisor predicted a couple of months back, and outsourcing is a good thing?

Keep polishing those talking points, Club.

Running on "We're really not doing that bad, considering historical data" is not the kind of uplifting message the GOP once hoped for.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Or are you all just arguing to hear yourselves talk?

What is debate then, if not the fun of hearing yourself talk? And maybe getting better at it, or even just getting some mental exercise?

It's not for everyone, and it sounds like you don't enjoy it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
And FWIW, I'd to like to add that I would never put the blame of the economy on someone as uninfluential as the president.

Amen. They just don't have that much effect on the economy.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I admire a person who can maintain a good partisan rant in the face of adverse facts.

I would dispute that the facts you cite are so adverse.

For example, that economist article sounds hopeful by pointing out that the current productivity growth will lead to more job creation, a line I have seen elsewhere recently. That appears promising, until you realize that productivity is aggregate company earnings/total wages, and does NOT take into account that a domestic company's profits may be partially earned through use of foreign labor. Therefore an export of jobs (yes I hate that line in Kerry's ad) would create an increase in a company's productivity even though the productivity of each individual American worker did not change a bit. In other words it's just as easy to see the rising productivity number as a sign that outsourcing pays.

Also the article is somewhat internally contradictory, lauding the ignored "real" growth of median income based on the reduction in average household size while later observing that women and teens have had to join the workforce in record numbers. Apparently it doesn't then make sense to connect the dots between the "real" household median income number and the fact that all 2.6 members now have to go to work to achieve it.

On the other hand, it might just be that I crave your admiration.

edited to fix grammar

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
On the other hand, it might just be that I crave your admiration.

And you have it, of course.

(My main point is the one Club articulated - that unemployment right now is at a fairly "normal" level. Granted, any unemployment sucks, but we're never going to hit 0%, and the level we're at now isn't bad when you look at history. To call this an unemployment crisis is overblown hype.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yep. So, the 2.3 million (or so) net job loss really doesn't matter, because you just can't expect the economy to do as well under Bush as it did under Clinton?

You can't expect the jobs in a bubble economy to equal the jobs in a non-bubble economy.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man In fact, you can't expect the Bush tax cuts to create 1 million net new jobs, as the President and his advisors confidently and proudly predicted that they would?

They will before November. Willing to wager?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Finally, you sure can't expect the economy to grow 3.2 million net new jobs in 2004, as one Bush advisor predicted a couple of months back, and outsourcing is a good thing?

Now here you have a point regarding the prediction. It was unreasonable. Outsourcing is a good thing long-term, but not short term, but I don't think anybody has the energy to rehash that debate, but I will say that if we ban outsourcing we will also have to be prepared for the reprecussions with respect to jobs that are outsourced TO the US and the loss of purchasing power of those in other countries to purchase OUR products.


S_A_M

edited to fix tags -- T.S.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by bilmore
What is debate then, if not the fun of hearing yourself talk? And maybe getting better at it, or even just getting some mental exercise?

It's not for everyone, and it sounds like you don't enjoy it.

Debate club where people pick sides and stick to them despite counterarguments? Nah. Not so much. Debating topics that I care about? Sure. As long as the person that I am debating with is listening to my points and countering thoughtfully (not nicely, but after thinking through their position and not just spewing some party line).

It probably comes down to the fact that the debates are by their nature more two-dimensional and rigid amongst posters on anonymous chat boards than they would be if you were dealing with the same people IRL. I think party line divisions are more obvious in this format than they are among the people that I talk to. Most of my friends are not wedded to either political party in particular (though most would say their views fall more to one side or the other).

So fine, I guess you are right that this is not my cup of tea (for posting), though I do read what is posted here fairly often and it is sometimes pretty informative if you weed out a fair amount of the partisan stuff. Maybe that is what GGG was saying.

I do still think that those that are looking at overall economy while ignoring a huge loss of jobs are doing themselves a disservice because I doubt a polling of American voters would reflect the general good economy if the general sense is that people are still out of jobs. That was my initial point.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Islamicism, not Islam. Madrasas, not schools. Words have meaning. Mine, and Hanks.

Indeed. Which is why I responded as I did to Hank's explanation of his joke, which belies your post ("fyi, I was simply making, the obviously a little too obtuse, joke that girls can't go to school in Islam countries.") and why I reacted strongly when you posted in defense of that hil-A-ri-ous joke. Hank's and your claim that you were talking about AQ is further belied by the fact that AQ doesn't run any countries and doesn't set educational policy even in the three nations you selected as exemplars, for whatever reason.

I made the point that girls do indeed attend school both in Islamic, and even in Islamist countries such as Iran (which you chose to mention). You then helpfully point out that madrassa attendance by girls in three specified countries is low. Unless you're willing to concede that was a 100% irrelevant point, I don't see how making the Islam/Islamist distinction helps you in your "defense" of Hank's admittedly overgeneralized and factually incorrect joke.*

*Factually incorrect jokes are funny when it is clear to all that they're factually incorrect --- in most people's experience, frogs don't walk into bars and midgets don't have enormous dicks. I'm still not certain we're on the same page on this, which is a different and less funny kind of irony.