Forum for discussion and essays on a wide range of subjects including technology, politics, economics, philosophy, and partying.
Every time I follow a link what I find is either ignorant,
ideologically hammered, or outright mendacious. As in the knowingly
lying kind of mendacious. It is symptomatic of progressivism's
pervasive habit: elevation of narrative over reality.
You mean knowing mendacity like demands to impose drug tests on welfare recipients because they are all using the money for drugs, or to impose obnoxious limits on voting because of the enormous incidence of people voting in other people's identities?Skipper was objecting to Wonkette, whose tone he despises. However, the link carried on to another link, about a man shooting a burglar. Are you and Skipper saying the burglar did not get shot?
"Obnoxious limits..."Indeed, I think they should let 'em all vote. Even the ones who aren't here yet. Even the ones who aren't born yet. It goes without saying, even the ones who have departed this world (since surely they are in another).Once, twice, thrice, early and often.(As long as they vote for the appropriate candidates---yes, at least we can make some conditions.)After all, if we don't allow this, how could we possibly consider ourselves an enlightened democracy?
Skipper was objecting to Wonkette, whose tone he despises. Harry, it isn't the tone, although that is easily bad enough. Rather, it is the fact void, where what is stated has no correlation with objective reality. I once again refer you to "Tea Baggers chanted 'Let him die'". You witlessly, or mendaciously, repeated that charge, which is complete, total, unadulterated, bovine extrusion.You mean knowing mendacity like demands to impose drug tests on welfare recipients because they are all using the money for drugs ...Ummm, no. Try again. Look for something more obvious, more glaringly apparent. Like, perhaps, that tax payers don't want to be enabling drug addiction for those who are using the money for drugs.... impose obnoxious limits on voting because of the enormous incidence of people voting in other people's identities?This is, in effect, a recap of the gun control thread. No qualification of just exactly how the limits are obnoxious. No considerattion of the actual impact on voting, and absolutely no regard for the very real problem of being completely unable to measure that which you cannot detect. Worse, considering how much you chide others about not learning from history, never mind your very selective definition and self-inflicted wounds, you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the Kennedy-Nixon election.But that's OK. As a progressive you have no need of explaining just how obnoxious the voting requirements are. Because, after all, it is only the narrative that matters.
Skipper, we ran those experiments, which is why I chose those particular examples of rightwing mendacity.And the results were, no evidence of drug use or substitute voting.So we are left with -- what is the motive of the rightwing, since it cannot be what the rightwingers say it is?Hmmmm. Tough question.
[Harry:] And the results were, no evidence of drug use or substitute voting.So let me get this straight, since there is no means for detecting either, that is proof they don't exist? (Also, unlike you, obviously, I did a little research on drug testing welfare recipients. As is almost universally true for your statements of "fact" it is both overegged, and wrong.)The motive is to ensure the integrity of elections. What you have left out, and this is true for every progressive on this subject, is an exact description of just how these ID requirements are onerous, and how the requirements have affected turnout. You know, facts, not more blown out hats.(Just as, in a similar vein, progressives have universally criticized the Citizens United by completely inverting the decision. Either they, and you, can't read, or you are lying vistas.)
'there is no means for detecting either'So, you deplore the rightwing drive in so many legislatures to require drug testing?I'll give you an exact description of how these requirements are onerous: My mother, born in 1924, does not have a birth certificate. This has caused her a great deal of trouble over the years.
So, you deplore the rightwing drive in so many legislatures to require drug testing?No, I deplore your statements of "fact" that were overegged where they weren't completely wrong.I'll give you an exact description of how these requirements are onerous: My mother, born in 1924, does not have a birth certificate. This has caused her a great deal of trouble over the years.1. Anecdote is not data.2. I'm just willing to bet there is, and was, a way to deal with that.3. This would be data: What you have left out, and this is true for every progressive on this subject, is an exact description of just how these ID requirements are onerous, and how the requirements have affected turnout. So how about stopping it with SQUIRREL and actually answer the question at hand?
Harry, neither of my parents had birth certificates either, but when I was only a kid, I went to the Bureau of Records, then "manned" by non-union workers who very efficiently, politely and caringly advised me on how to get some sort of an equivalent document for them which served them well for the rest of their lives.Too bad you couldn't do as much for your old mum and save her a lifetime of agita.Drug testing should be mandatory for people on public assistance and there should be strict limitations on what may be purchased with food stamps aka EBT cards. No fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, tattoos, video games or gaming ... and no transferring or selling of the cards. Money goes a lot further when nutritious meals are prepared at home from scratch, etc. If one is truly needy and needs public assistance to feed themselves and their dependents, one should expect that those managing taxpayers’ money and those who accept it have the responsibility to spend it wisely.If one can’t abide by these onerous restrictions, there’s always the option to GET A JOB.Re: Doing studies on voter and welfare fraud. Harry, have you heard the one about the fox in the henhouse? Lots of parallels to your contentions.
Post a Comment