Page 3 of 75
Posted on June 12 at 11:39 a.m.
The letter-writer claims that there’s a partisan division on infrastructure spending. I said that, in contrast to an opinion expressed in the Comments that there’s no real difference between the two parties, there is indeed a philosophical difference between them on the role of government. How is that off-topic?
By the way, one laundry list of fiscal “malfeasance” you cite includes things like, “Last year, the federal government spent $96,000 to buy iPads for kindergarten students in Maine.” Every website that mentions this repeats the same list, and the link to support this doesn’t work on any of them. But let’s assume that it and every other item are true. That doesn’t make them necessarily “malfeasance” As for whether this is a partisan issue – coming up with the federal budget involves decisions on how to raise and allocate funds, including funds for infrastructure. There is a vast gulf between “should be” and “is,” and one would have to be spectacularly ignorant of how government works to believe that coming up with a budget is a nonpartisan process.
You state, “When the Dem's held sway over the entire government, Obama did zero about this problem, or any other problem for that matter." I guess in your mind the stimulus package that was passed in 2009, which included spending on infrastructure is neither fact nor data. Actually, what is neither fact nor data is your claim that Obama did zero about every problem over the last 6½ years, which deserves as much weight as every other opinion you express.
Apparently to illustrate your notion that “facts” and “data” are different things, you say, “Data can help to understand who voted for what bill and what riders were attached to dissimilar legislation etc but the fact is that government has not kept our infrastructure up to date.” You could have said, “Facts can help to understand who voted for what bill and what riders were attached to dissimilar legislation etc but the data show that government has not kept our infrastructure up to date,” and it wouldn’t have changed your meaning one bit.
In my opinion, your inability to understand these simple facts (= data) provides ample data (= facts) for just how well you learned your lessons on “data, information, and deductive and inductive logic.”
On A Sound Infrastructure Indicates a Sound Country
Posted on June 12 at 7:59 a.m.
Anyone who thinks that Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton have the same ideas about the role of government as Ted Cruz and Sam Brownback can't read.
As for nomo's reasoning skills, this is the quy who a few days ago implored another commenter to "please, please learn the difference between FACTS and DATA" but wasn't able to explain just what this difference is supposed to be.
Posted on June 7 at 7:45 a.m.
OK nomo, help us out. What is the difference between facts and data?
On Political Reaction to Refugio Oil Spill Continues
Posted on May 26 at 9:52 a.m.
14noscamsAn elementary school registration form filled out by an unknown person is not a legal document and proves nothing about Obama's US citizenship status when he returned to the US. In fact, "there is no possible way under either United States OR Indonesian law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship and been granted Indonesian citizenship as a child."
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfict... And yes, 14noscams, you did miss the references discrediting the American Thinker article, and I can post them: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/with-...
On Refugio Pipeline Shutdown Puts Brakes on Oil Production
Posted on May 26 at 8:38 a.m.
Yes and no. It certainly is frustrating to see a discussion about a given topic taken over by what seems like a completely irrelevant issue. On the other hand, if I had to choose between having a moderator patrol every discussion to make sure everyone keeps to what the moderator considers relevant and the sometimes borderline anarchy that reigns in some of the comments, I would choose the latter. It's easy enough to skip around the noise.
As for what is or is not relevant, I could argue that if someone with whom you're having a discussion about, say, the federal role in inspecting oil pipelines starts talking about having his brain being messed with by space aliens, one of whom is the President, you have a pretty good indication of the context in which to judge that person's other remarks.
Finally, although I respect the views of people like you and some of the other saner folks around here and take the trouble myself of popping in now and then, it remains just the Comments section of a local newspaper, with vanishingly small impact on anything of significance in the real world.
Posted on May 25 at 11:02 p.m.
Beliefs based on contempt and paranoid fantasies are immune to logic or reality. Jarvis and 14no will go on gleefully repeating their discredited stories. Just look at how JJ reacted to my comments about his claims -- he dropped a bit of what he no doubt thinks is some especially clever snark, then disappeared, only to reemerge as if no one had pointed out just how how illogical and fact-free his argument really is.
Posted on May 25 at 5:35 p.m.
Once again, when reality comes knocking at the door, Jarvis goes scuttling out the window.
Posted on May 25 at 9:43 a.m.
Sorry to continue the diversion of this thread, but Jarvis made an explicit accusation against me, that of not "rebutting the issues." In fact, I provided the Obama quote that he failed to, which rebutted his claim about it, as is typically the case with Jarvis' jihad against the President.
As for his additional arguments about the President, consider his evidence about Obama's real, legal name. Jarvis quotes a right-wing site whose credibility can be judged by the fact that it features cartoons showing Obama sprouting horns from the top of his head. In one cartoon, he's saying, "We need to get rid of racist cops in America," and then "Now... if we get rid of all cops we can do whatever we want and never go to jail... How cool is that?"
OK, so even a biased, flagrantly anti-Obama source might have some factual evidence. What does this site provide? Nothing. Just, "We are told that ...," followed by the same claim that Jarvis makes, that Obama's legal name really is Barry Soetoro, which he never legally changed. Jarvis thinks that a quote from someone who believes the same thing that he does is evidence that their shared opinion is correct.
Jarvis also says, "It was my understanding he kept a dual citizenship, but used his Indonesian citizenship status when it worked best for him -- 'conspiracy' buffs claim Barry came to Columbia as an Indonesian foreign student. But with no public records of this murky time in his young life, it is hard to tell."
First, the only evidence Jarvis provides for his "understanding" that Obama returned to the US with "Indonesian citizenship status" is that "under some circumstances an Indonesian dual citizenship is allowed and may well have applied" to him in his early years. So, he takes "may well have applied" as support for his explicit claim that Obama did in fact have and use this status, even though there is absolutely no evidence that Obama did claim or use it.
But what about that Columbia University issue? Well, no, Jarvis, it isn't hard to tell whether this charge against Obama is true. It's based on a fake student ID card that someone made up as evidence that he was an Indonesian foreign student. Jarvis is trying to be fair to the "conspiracy" buffs, so he's keeping open the possibility that this proven hoax might actually be true.
Jarvis finally explains why this is important to him -- his endless repetition of this dishonest narrative is justified by his belief that Obama "is still a callow and dangerous kid, who has not grown up at all." In other words, "I can make up whatever I want about people I don't like, and it's an 'extreme response" to ask for evidence that what I'm saying is true."
Posted on May 24 at 2:20 p.m.
I know that I've said I'd try to avoid ad hominem arguments, but when the hominid in question is Jarvis, it seems useful to point out just where his arguments are coming from.
Posted on May 24 at 2:08 p.m.
When someone who persists in claiming that the President's real, legal name is "Barry Soetoro" but who, like others who make the claim, has no evidence for this, characterizes the President's remark that there would be 1 million cars on the road by 2015 as a "promise," it's a good idea to check what the President actually said:
"With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015."
A hopeful, conditional prediction is not a promise.
Jarvis also claimed that he wasn't assigning responsibility to Lois Capps for the oil spill in the dozen or so posts he made about her in relation to an earlier article, but now he forgets to cover himself in question marks and claims that she had "direct control" over the pipeline.