Disqus - Latest Comments for jasmarsden

Re: The Battle for Healthcare Has Just Begun

JasMars — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:21:17 -0000

No one believes those CBO numbers. Don't expect us to believe the ACA will reduce the deficit. Talk about repeating talking points, "The CBO, the CBO, the CBO..." Next we'll hear about how we shouldn't be questioning the CBO because they are the impartial "referees". And then I'll explain that the CBO's calculations are only as good as the numbers they are being fed to work with. In this case it was garbage in garbage out, it's not remotely a question of calling into question the integrity of the CBO.

Re: The Battle for Healthcare Has Just Begun

JasMars — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:13:38 -0000

Democrats want to do nothing on entitlement reform. Weak.

Re: The GOPs Sick Priorities

JasMars — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:52:41 -0000

First you fell into the trap of assuming that I was an Obama apologist and now, being incapable of making an argument on the merits, you are reduced to the cheapest of all forms of rhetoric, the ad hominem attack. When someone bypasses the substance of the matter and relies of attacking the person making the argument, in this case Krauthammer, that person has lost the argument.

Re: The GOPs Sick Priorities

JasMars — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:10:34 -0000

Here ya go pal, read this, get enlightened: http://www.investors.com/Ne... It's all just petty maneuvering. Your precious unsustainable entitlement programs are safe, for now.

Re: The GOPs Sick Priorities

JasMars — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:24:24 -0000

It's not an excuse, it's a theory. To call me a Democratic Party partisan is laughable when I'm actually a right leaning independent. Notice how I'm saying that he's "pretending"? That's me pointing out that he's being highly disingenuous, cynical, and nakedly political when he's should be doing what is in the best interest of the country. In all of these negotiations he's merely trying to best position himself to win re-election which, trust me, is the last thing that I want.

Re: The GOPs Sick Priorities

JasMars — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:10:26 -0000

President Obama is just pretending to put entitlements on the table, he has no specific proposals along those lines. It's a bluff.

Re: More on the Obamacare Ruling via the Volokh Conspiracy

JasMars — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:56:54 -0000

I love how Obama preaches about transparent government to dictators like Mubarak yet the Obama regime is one of the least transparent in recent history with all of the back room deals, kick backs, and shake downs used to help cram through Obamacare in the middle of the night using parliamentary gimmicks.

Where do I get in line for my Obamacare carve out?

Re: RealClearPolitics - Can Obama Make Sense of Government?

JasMars — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:19:06 -0000

Let's start improving Government by getting rid of Obamacare.

Re: The President as Micromanager - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

JasMars — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:46:57 -0000

That could be the best op-ed of the year so far, hilariously, scarily on point.

Re: The Debate Over Repealing Health Care Reform Is Fake, and Boring - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

JasMars — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:48:40 -0000

Saying that Republicans "don't trust" the CBO is deliberately inaccurate and part of a calculated mis-framing of the issue. Proponents of Obamacare have to cast the debate in a way that makes opponents seem unreasonable for seemingly daring to call into question the credibility of the CBO when they are doing nothing of the sort. It's garbage in, garbage out. Like a calculator, the CBO is only as good as the numbers it is asked to worked with or in this case, asked to assume. It's the underlying data that the CBO is using to give its scoring that is highly questionable here, not the credibility of the CBO. Until proponents of Obamacare will care to see that distinction they are only talking in circles and circling the wagons around a flawed and purposefully deceptive argument. They are in fact trying to muddy the issue with this willful ignorance of the actual arguments of their opposition. It's obfuscation as opposed to clarification.

Re: Cut it Up, Divide it a Hundred Ways, It's Still Republican

JasMars — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:47:25 -0000

Still calling the Tea Party movement "teabaggers" is so boring I can't be bothered reading any further.

Re: They Will Own It

JasMars — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:07:54 -0000

I know, I know shoot the messenger, blame Bush.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:50:44 -0000

Even though we go around and around like a merry go round, I still enjoy our debates.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:04:03 -0000

Yes, sometimes you attack the character of the person you disagree with and sometimes you attack the circumstances from which the person you disagree with derives their opinion (a slightly more forgivable offense).

In this most recent discussion, when you accuse me of grafting everyhing I say from Limbaugh and Beck, that's more of a circumstantial ad hominem attack.

When you say that I "know nothing" for example, that's a straight up insult I'm obligated to take
personally since there is no other way of regarding an insult.

So yes, you use both styles of ad hominem attack.

Call it variations of a theme. You're like the Stravinsky of ad hominem attacks.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:11:43 -0000

Fair enough, I suppose.

But I would like to point out something I learned fairly recently: That there are at least two types of the ad hominem attack. There is the personal attack, like an insult, then there is the circumstantial ad hominem attack. So when I accuse you of employing the ad hominem attack I'm referring to the second type. So rather than feeling insulted or slighted, I'm merely making a dispassionate observation of your argumentative style.

From wiki:

Types of ad hominems

[Two] traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive (or ad personam), ad hominem circumstantial...

Ad hominem abusive:

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.

Examples:

"You can't believe Jack when he says God exists. He doesn't even have a job."

"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Ad hominem circumstantial:

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[3]

Examples:

"Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”

"What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!"

So, you see just as there is a difference between 'ideas' in the generic sense and 'legislative ideas', there is a difference between a personal attack and a circumstantial ad hominem attack.

So I'm not necessarily "wearing my emotions on my sleeve" or reacting in an emotional visceral sense when I point out your use of the circumstantial ad hominem attack.

Both forms of the ad hominem attack, however, qualify as the lowest form of debate in my mind because they are ultimately intended to subvert rather than address the crux of the argument.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:01:48 -0000

I see, you can't reconcile my substantive point (that The GOP does have ideas, even legislative ones: HR3217) so you go with strictly an ad hominem attack devoid of any substance whatsoever.

The Chris basic playbook: Discredit the person making the argument and you can avoid the substance of the argument by essentially changing the subject and thereby subverting the argument.

Re: Huge Shocker

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:28:44 -0000

Hopefully there was some quid pro quo behind the scenes with the Ruskies.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:21:03 -0000

If that is the case you are now operating outside of the boundaries of objective reality.

HR 3217

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:31:45 -0000

"You link to a newspaper op-ed to prove Republicans have ideas."

and,

"Newspaper op-eds are not legislative ideas"

See a difference? I do. The word 'legislative'.

You can't have it both ways Chris.

I'll stick to my guns on ideas in the generic general sense. As soon as you start adding qualifiers and caveats I'll concede that an op-ed is not meant to prove 'legislative' ideas or whatever other specific interpretation of 'ideas' you suddenly want to impose on me.

But this whole conversation is a bit silly don't you think? Unless you're still clinging to the notion that the GOP is bereft of ideas, there's no real point in having a semantic debate.

The fact of the matter is that the GOP has both ideas in the general brainstorming sense as I originally meant and they have ideas in the specific legislative sense that you tried to assume I meant when I originally linked to Krauthammer.

The real question here is not whether or not I have to accept your strict definition of ideas, but rather; whether or not you still imagine that the GOP has none in any form whatsoever.

Do you still believe that? If not, I was correct on the substance all along.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:30:01 -0000

"Newspaper op-eds are not legislative ideas"

Fine with me, I never claimed they were.

However, HR 3217 is very much "true" as in "actual".

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:32:51 -0000

I first heard of the Daily Mail article via twitter from one of the regular people I follow. I'm sure you could say the person was just watching Fox News and repeating what they saw but then again maybe you'd be surprised how quickly things come across Twitter. Often times faster than any other media outlet or news source that I am aware of. So you're right, I didn't just spontaneously think of the Daily Mail article in my mind or happen upon it online because I like reading British newspapers.

If you knew about the Mail article you could have mentioned it, but you chose not to because it didn't fit your narrative that the conservative claims of attendance were utterly baseless. Me pointing the article out is not an attempt to "prove" anything other than your sin of omission.

I notice you've now added the caveat "true" to ideas for your requirement of the Repubs.

The Max Baucus proposal isn't even a bill yet, so even it -the latest and most current proposal of ideas from the Dems- doesn't qualify for your excruciatingly strict definition of what constitutes "true" ideas.

The papers that the Repubs were waving around was their alternative bill.

But you're right, the Repubs should at least try to support the Baucus proposal that is yet to be in bill form because it will be killed anyway by The Left for not including a robust public option. Republicans would at least seem consistent rather than seeming overtly political.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:28:15 -0000

You're still clinging to the notion that Republicans have no ideas of their own when it comes healthcare? Wow. What do you think that was they were waving around the other night during Obama's speech? Like you, Obama also clings to this fiction that there are no ideas being offered by the Republicans even though the latest proposal just authored by Max Baucus finally actually includes the Republican ideas of tort reform and E-verification to screen out illegals which apparently are ideas which in your mind never existed.

When I link to an op-ed or in this case the Daily Mail article I'm merely bringing something to your attention rather than trying to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt anything. This is not a mathmatical equation, I can't "prove" anything to you. I can merely bring things to your attention that you are ostensibly unaware of. The word "prove" is your word not mine.

You don't have to discredit the Daily Mail article to me which I knew you would try to do. If you look carefully at my comment it's clear that I'm concurring with the number of 80,000 as a large enough number.

You're using your incorrect assumption that I'm attempting to "prove" something when I'm merely presenting information that you seem oblivious to in order to attack and discredit me. Your misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of what I'm trying to communcate to you is a rather frivolous basis to attack me on.

I guess it's just your way being able to dismiss whatever It is that I have to say no matter what by just parroting the line that "I linked to an op-ed" and therefore nothing I could be saying on any topic could ever have any merit.

If I say the sky is blue. You just say, "you linked to an op-ed" and presto, you've now proven that the sky is in fact not blue.

The Max Baucus proposal, BTW, seems reasonable other than the fact that it's still too expensive. But expense isn't the reason it'll be defeated by the Left.

Re: Why Lie?

JasMars — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:20:32 -0000

Simply ascribing the 9-12 protesters to the fact that people are angry that "their guy lost" is an overly simplistic analysis to say the least. Some in the media have cited this Daily Mail estimate rather than simply making up a number out of thin air as you seem to want to imply. If you have a problem with estimates that are above 80,000 -which is a lot of people as you concede- then take it up with the Daily Mail.

Or just dismiss or discredit as you are want to do with any information which does not comport with your worldview.

Re: Speech Reaction

JasMars — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:22:10 -0000

If you look at the toolbar, you have the ability to edit what you just wrote for an unknown time after posting something. It's actually better than the preview mode my blog uses. It basically publishes when you're ready, but you can go back and fix something that you see is a typo or whatever.

Re: Very Classy

JasMars — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:41 -0000

Well get on that will ya? What am I paying you for? Oh right, I'm not paying you.

And I wasn't paid by the Romney campaign even though I have a better command of the issues than many who were. I wear the fact that I wasn't paid as a badge of honor. It means that I'm a regular person/concerned citizen rather than a paid political operative like yourself.