ROSEN: Exposing 'falsisms'
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 13, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
If a "truism" is a statement, the truth of which is obvious and universally accepted, then there ought to be another term - let's call it a "falsism" - for statements that we hear all the time that aren't true, even if widely accepted by people who've never given them much thought. Here are a few examples:
"Perception is reality." No. Reality is reality. If you perceive that you can fly like Superman and attempt to leap a tall building in single bound, you'll go splat! against that building. Perhaps this falsism derives from the misapplication of the valid observation that perception is reality in politics. That is, people vote on the basis of their perceptions. And even if those perceptions are incorrect, enough people voting on incorrect perceptions can produce the reality of a politician winning election, which may be the reality of prime importance to the victorious politician. Conversely, incorrect negative perceptions can defeat a politician.
It's another matter to say that perceptions can create realities, as with depositors who've lost confidence in the security of their savings - with justification or without - and stage a run on the bank. The run on the bank is very much a reality.
"Any publicity is good publicity." While it's true that, sometimes, bad publicity can be turned to one's advantage, it's absurd to apply this generalization to every situation. Just ask O.J. Simpson, Barry Bonds, Britney Spears, Elliot Spitzer or Larry Craig, to name a few.
"War achieves nothing." This may be an impassioned plea of pacifists but it doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny or the historical record. Sadly, war might wreak death and destruction, but the pertinent word here is achieves. If we define that as bringing about a desired outcome, wars have accomplished a great deal - for evil or good - from biblical times to the Roman Empire to the Middle East today. Some of those achievements have been transitory, but war has historically served to establish national boundaries, secure treasure and liberate or enslave multitudes. The United States was born of the Revolutionary War. Our Civil War ended slavery and preserved the union. World War II rid the world of Nazi Germany. As Winston Churchill noted, "The only thing worse than war is losing one." And lest you believe that you can ignore an aggressor and "boycott" a war, recall the warning of Leon Trotsky, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." You might call that stubbornness, but it's not insanity by any accepted definition. Doctors don't even use the term any more. They prefer more specific variations of "psychopathology" to describe mental illness. In legal parlance, a lawyer might plead his client "not guilty by reason of insanity," arguing that he couldn't distinguish right from wrong. In general, there's nothing necessarily insane about perseverance. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again," is a term of encouragement. On the 100th anniversary of their last World Series win, the Chicago Cubs might finally make it this year.
"You can't legislate morality." Of course you can, and all societies have done it from time immemorial. Think of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Prohibition under the 18th Amendment was the legislation of morality, as are laws against adultery, polygamy and doing business on the Sabbath. When Henry VIII found the pope's laws on marriage and divorce inconvenient, he made his own. What this bromide really means is that while you can legislate morality, passing such laws is no guarantee that they'll be followed. Even under the threat of punishment, human beings with free will sometimes do things of which others disapprove.
"It's not the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't true." - Will Rogers (if he actually said it).
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
June 13, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Good column...but a repeat of his talking points on his show yesterday.
June 13, 2008
6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
This is as good as it gets for conservatives these days.
Having every conservative policy fail miserably, having lied to the American people to incite unnecessary war, having run the nation deep into debt, and having proven themselves woefully incompetent on the economic front, this is all a conservative has: a trite critique of common platitudes.
June 13, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
HTH - Even Mike Rosen has a lighter side on certain Fridays. Maybe you need to grasp that. It's not all about partisan politics. How can you be so angry before 7:00AM on a Friday???
June 13, 2008
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
HolierThan Thou: All you do is complain about conservatives, but do not provide any constructive ideas. I would like you to tell me exactly what the liberals plan to do to "get us out of debt" and turn the economy around (even though we are not even in a recession)? Raise taxes perhaps?
June 13, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
I would use an example other than failed Prohibition to argue that you can legislate morality.
The point of the phase "You can't legislate morality" often is that such legislation (like Prohibition) is ineffective. The phase usually doesn't mean that such legislation can't be passed (of course it can).
June 13, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Lwayfan
GWB puts us in debt and you have the gall to ask how the dems are going to get us out. WOW!!!!! And what Rosen failed to bring up in his pro war rant is it also makes a lot of money for his industrial war machine. Which is America's number one reason for war.
June 13, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Miseslover writes:
This starts okay, but as with everything Rosen does, it fails miserably by his own standards. These aren't truisms--at least if you hold them up to be statements of "truth." They are merely cliches used to illustrate some measures of greater truths, though not true in and of themselves (in that they are not consistent--as Rosen point out).
As for legislating morality, he totally misses the point of the statement. The statement means that passing a law does not inscribe morality on my heart (or mind). You can not pass a law that "makes" me moral, you simply outlaw the immorality that I continue to practice. Outlawing theft (an immoral act) does not transform a thief (an immoral person) into an honest man. Though we love to make theives (politicians) honest men by legalizing their theft from every productive individual.
June 13, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
Dilligaf: So your answer is that you don't have one?
Bush didn't put us into debt. We have been in debt for a long time. And I would rather be in debt if we are spending money on the military anyway. You would rather be in debt too as long as money is being wasted on useless social programs. So what are you complaining about anyway?
June 13, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Bush didn't put us into debt"
lol...nope, we had some national debt before the republicans took over all three branches of gov't...they just doubled it.
good work guys...but don't whine when dems can't fix the failures right away.
i'm with HTT...this is what the right wing has been reduced to talking about because they simply can't defend their track record and can't justify their failed policy stances.
pretty pathetic.
oh...and since mike "rose colored glasses" rosen brought up "falsisms"...
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...
June 13, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Lighten up Jay, and HTT, get a life.
I see you're still quoting media matters; if you keep up, I'm going to have to start quoting Dr. Suess - they're both of equal intelligent use...!
June 13, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlowWalker writes:
HTH --- talk about "falsisms" !! You're full of them! If that's the best that LIBERALs can do, then I'm not too worried.
I see that liberals wouldn't know the truth/Truth if it bit them on the behind ...
June 13, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
Jay: I'll ask you since no other liberal on this blog will answer. How do liberals plan to make the economy better. I really want to know how, and no liberal will answer the question.
June 13, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lwayfan...if you're unaware of the dem policy stances i suggest you educate yourself on them before the election.
here are some sites to get you started.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/eco...
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/e...
take a moment to specifically read obama's economic policy plan. very good reading and actually provides more specificity than mccain's site.
ted....i've debunked the myth that media matters isn't a credible source of information, but if you want to make a fool out of yourself we can go over it again...or you can just read the last conversation i had with eli and kw about it in rosen's archive.
you simply can't make the case that compiling a list of the far right's own rhetoric isn't a credible source of rhetoric of the far right.
June 13, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Lwayfan: History repeats itself. In the late seventies, Jimmy Carter tried the socialist method of fixing the economy, and after the next presidential cycle, he wasn't president anymore. The question is, can we find another economically hardcore conservative to clean up the mess afterward?
June 13, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
BTW, arguing with jay makes one feel like a dog chasing his own tail. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is better than doing absolutely nothing.
June 13, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
spencer jr., don't pout.
why don't you enlighten the class and tell us which of obama's policy stances on the economy justify your "socialism" boogeyman conspiracy theory.
June 13, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Create an American Opportunity Tax Credit. Create a Universal Mortgage Credit. The two most prominent ones on your first link. Government subsidized college and government subsidized home ownership. There are a few others, but they do not overtly raise taxes. However, they do take the tax burden off of the "poor" in some of the others, meaning that he is either going to cut government programs (Ha!), raise taxes some more on the rich (probably), or just let the debt grow (maybe, maybe not).
June 13, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And neither of your sites mention Obamacare (universal healthcare). These are all forms of compartmentalized socialism. Just grannying it in...one step at a time.
Before you scream "strawman," I will admit that it is not pure socialism...it is socialism in segments of our economy where previously it did not exist.
June 13, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I will admit that it is not pure socialism"
enough said.
keep the conspiracy theories for the rush limbaugh fantasy hour.
June 13, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Another of Rosen's painful 700 word space-fillers. I can reduce it to four words.
"Don't take aphorisms literally."
Ummm....yeah, thanks Mike. Don't think I could have figured that out by myself.
I really do wish the RMN would get a decent writer as its local conservative columnist.
June 13, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
A dog chasing my tail. I proved my point.
June 13, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
I love it. According to your website Jay, Barrack Obama's economic plan consists of establishing universal healthcare and ending global warming. Why didn't Barrack just say:
"I plan on raising taxes for all Americans because when I raise taxes on evil corporations who produce items we all use it will be passed down to the consumer through higher prices, and then I will redistribute this money to wasteful government programs to cure problems that my fellow Democrats made up in order to give us a reason to raise taxes in the first place. This, of course, will stimulate the economy. This is a change back to the 1970's you can believe in."
June 13, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, I have one simple question for you.
Is socialism good or bad?
June 13, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Hey Jay; all I'm saying is Media Mattes is about as slanted as Pravda. Even Pravda hit truth once in a while, but only a fool believes everything they wrote.
Same goes for Media Matters...
June 13, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lwayfan...not quite...but that willful ignorance thing you've got going should come in hand as the election heats up and you have to try to make a case that a third bush term is a good idea.
spencer jr, there are good and bad aspects of socialism just as their are good and bad aspects of pure free market capitalism. lucky for us we don't have to have an all or nothing system in either case. we can take the best from both and leave the negative aspects on the shelf.
ted...how is compiling the rhetoric of those folks on the far right "slanted"?
is the far right not a credible source of info on themselves?
June 13, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
nonayerbsns writes:
"Any publicity is good publicity." While it's true that, sometimes, bad publicity can be turned to one's advantage, it's absurd to apply this generalization to every situation. Just ask O.J. Simpson, (HE GOT AWAY WITH IT) Barry Bonds,(HE GOT AWAY WITH IT) Britney Spears, (SHE's GETTING AWAY WITH IT) Elliot Spitzer (HE GOT AWAY WITH IT) or Larry Craig, (HE GOT AWAY WITH IT).
SO, what was it you were saying there, Rosie?
June 13, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
Your right Jay, I apologize. O'Bama also plans to give internet access to everyone. This will definitely be an economy booster.
Every item on his economic stiulus package has a reference to environmentalism in it (except for giving universal healthcare to everyone and giving internet to everyone). And if there is any doubt about this, I suggest everyone click on the link Jay provided and read O'bama's economic growth plan (Warning: it is quite painful to read).
If you think increasing the cost of production through increased regulation and forcing environmental on American producers will somehow stimulate the economy, then you are more ignorant of basic economic principles than I thought.
June 13, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lwayfan...what regulation are you refering to?
June 13, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chadley25 writes:
Wow, this is a really stupid article. Is this honestly the best Mike Rosen can come up with? Is this what die-hard conservatives tune in to his radio show to hear? I know some pretty smart conservatives, and I think they'd be bored and annoyed by this tripe. I know I was, just from reading it. Most of these sayings are not to be taken 100% literally (as in "perception is reality," a saying most often heard in the business world, where it absolutely holds true more often than not). I've never even HEARD the so-called "truism" that "war achieves nothing." Even most pacifists would concede that war is an unfortunate necessity at times, and indeed does accomplish things. We'd all still be beholden to the British crown were it not for war.
June 13, 2008
6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
I am referring to his environmental regulations such as creating his renewable portfolio standard "requiring 25% of electricity to be from renewable resources". Also his plan for "bold new energy efficiency goals". And although this is not necessarily a regulation, I love the fact that he plans on spending federal money on energy focused youth programs. This of course is all in addition to creating one of the biggest governmental programs ever for universal healthcare which will put thousands out of work in the healthcare industry, including very important doctors and specialists. All of this is part of his ECONOMIC plan. Is this guy for real??
June 13, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
GWB puts us in debt...still laughing at that one! Did our economic history start 8 years ago? Oh my, the ignorance grows!
June 13, 2008
6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
so do you actually have examples of these evil industry regulations or not, wfan?
either post examples of them from his website or concede the point.
June 13, 2008
7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
I did take examples from the website you linked to above. Requiring 25% of electricity to come from renewable resources is a regulation. Efficiency goals are regulations. Do you know what a regulation is?
What about regulations prohibiting increases in oil drilling that normally would be occurring right now but for the government prohibiting it from happening. Is Obama for lifting these restrictions on drilling and refining to help lower gas prices for the working people? No, he is for taxing "big oil" even more which will only increase prices. Obama is the biggest phony since Bill Clinton. At least socialists like Dennis Kusinich and Ralph Nader admit who they are.
June 13, 2008
7:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
ksells writes:
ksells writes:
Hi Mike,
A repost to another story in the RMN. Read it or not. You don't have the volume control, so it's read it or not. It's in regard to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing a person to not be put in prison for years without trial. Something that you don't agree with because that person who made the decision is a Republican.
I have to say I'm impressed with the RMN. After years of supporting Little George the News finally took a stand that is right. Late, but right. I was shocked by some of the comments by some of the readers (murder prisoners), but most of the comments are to support America and its goals. Mike Rosen must feel like he's been stabbed in the back because it wasn't the Post that trashed Little George, but the RMN. Thank God that one of the political Republican appointees to the Supreme Court had the courage to support our system.
June 13, 2008
9:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
A trite derivative column, he must have had a long weekend planned.
June 13, 2008
10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
Lwayfan,
"And I would rather be in debt if we are spending money on the military anyway."
So you would rather spend money on killing people than on the betterment of mankind.
This is the typical conservative philosophy that America no longer accepts. It is time to move on and rock and roll with Obama!
June 14, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
60s4ever, "and rock and roll with Obama!", in which of the states 51-57 are you registered to vote? "So you would rather spend money on killing people than on the betterment of mankind.", does Nancy Pelosi get to dictate what the betterment would be, or Harry Reid?
Vote JFK in '08!!!!!
June 14, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Rosen makes a living doing this? Any poster here can do this stuff.
Take, "don`t bite the hand that feeds you". If you are a man eating shark that isn`t a truism. You want the whole arm.
June 14, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
wfan...i still am not seeing any info from obama's site on industry regulations...is this a conspiracy theory of yours?
June 14, 2008
11:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
Anarchist,
FYI - The name is about the music of the decade. Nobody's dictating anything! That's beauty of democracy and we're voting out the party of fear.
June 15, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
60s4ever, "FYI - The name is about the music of the decade.", thanks, I didnt ask, so you didnt have to tell, but thanks. "Nobody's dictating anything!","on the betterment of mankind.", you take offence to dictate, alright, decide,enact, legislate,which do you prefer to describe washington making your decisions for you about whats best for you?
"That's beauty of democracy and we're voting out the party of fear". Exactly which party would that be, the democrats hold the majority in the house and senate, and a republican holds the white house, that the house and senate can over-ride, so what party do you refer to, the socialist leaning democrats or conservative leaning republicans? If it' the democrats you back, and democracy, I wonder how democratic the voters of Florida and Michigan feel the Democratic party leaders were?
To the topic of truisms, it seems many posters "fabricate" facts, as Mr. Rosen points out, "It's another matter to say that perceptions can create realities, as with depositors who've lost confidence in the security of their savings - with justification or without - and stage a run on the bank. The run on the bank is very much a reality." Party of fear, uh huh.
June 15, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
The Democrats may hold the majority, but they can't do anything because they are either vetoed or fillibustered. That's about to change. I am disappointed with Nancy Pelosi in that she won't support the impeachment of Bush.
GW and his buddies are definitely the party of fear because that's what he used for the buildup of the war. As far as the betterment of mankind, all I have to say is, "Yes we can!"
June 15, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
Pretty much every time the US has entered into military conflict (war, police action, whatever) it was for the betterment of mankind. I'm not saying that killing people betters mankind, but it generally ends or permanently hinders the opposition to that betterment.
June 15, 2008
6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
That used to be the case until the defense contractors got into power. Eisenhower tried to warn us about it. While this movie is labeled as a leftist movie, most of the people talking are from the pentagon:
www.whywefight.com
Scott McClellan’s book is consistent with the points made in the movie and the web site.
June 15, 2008
6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
60s4ever, you sidestepped and tap danced, good little democrat, but you added,"all I have to say is, 'Yes we can!'". is that rhetoric of Obama, or an admission you have no mind or free will to think on your own for your own behalf, "we" certainly doesn't include Me, thank you, and I refer you to to the editorial portion where Mr.Rosn writes about perception becoming reality, you do prove his point well, thank you yet again.
June 15, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
60s4ever, Mr. Johnsons editorial deals with free speech being denied U.S. citizens by the DNC, why is that if they are the party of the people, not the party of fear? I would enjoy reading your comments on that editorial, thank you.
June 15, 2008
8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
"With the Democrats, there is a chance that by people speaking out, they can be moved forward on a more progressive platform. We know what the Republicans are about. People have been after them for 40 years, and they've done nothing."
"You go after the people closer to your own position because it is more likely to produce change."
That says it all. At least with the dems, they stand a chance of being heard. The republicans talking points up to the election will be:
"Fear and Taxes"
"Fear and Taxes"
And let's see, oh yes "Fear and Taxes".
The problem is, anarchist, (although I think that you're really a repub) is that there are only two parties to choose from. Being an independent, I chose the democrats because I would like to see an end to the freakin war which Obama has been against since the start. Get it.
June 15, 2008
11:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Uh, Mike, perception is not reality even "in politics". Rather, in the political sphere, as well as others, perception *can affect* reality. Thank you, class dismissed.
June 16, 2008
5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
60s4ever, wrong, I am a registered independent, and would like to see the war in Iraq, and Afganistan (yes, troops are still there). I also would have voted for Hillary, but the democrats fixed the nominations, and now resist allowing it's own supporters a voice at the DNC, and no, I am not talking Florida or Michigan, but re-create 68 among many groups. So it seems that the party that cries out freedom loudest, the democrats, are the least generous in granting it to their own registered voters and the "people". The portion of this editorial that fits you best I think is that if you repeat a falicy long enough and loud enough, it doesn't make it a fact, just an annoyance to others.
June 16, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
I supported Hillary all the way until her concession speech. I would love to see Obama choose her as his VP. However, I 'm doing what Hillary asked her supporters to do, and that is to vote for Barack Obama.
June 16, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
What are those "failed" conservative policies?
Sometimes killing is a betterment for mankind, Hitler anyone?
There is not one person here that would rather have the war end now in Iraq than our soldiers.. but that is a wish list.. not reality.. sometimes it takes violence to end violence.. we all know that, why keep repeating the urban myth that this is not so?
May God Bless,
Father O'Malley
June 16, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Father O'Malley, perhaps they believe that in repeating it enough, it could become fact, or, some folks are just easily entertained, I am not sure.
June 16, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
60s4ever, I do hope that works out for You.
June 16, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"What are those "failed" conservative policies"
really? father rush, do you REALLY not know or is this another case of right wing willful ignorance?
have been living in a cave for the last 8 years?
June 16, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
Conservative policies consist of reducing the size of government and allowing the free market to work, creating economic properity for all (both rich and poor). The free market is not perfect, but it has proven to be the best system available. Conservatives recognize that government does have a legitimate purpose and the most important purpose is protecting the nation from foreign threats, and thus government spending on military is not only proper but absolutely necessary.
Liberal policies consist of increasing the size of government in order to redistrubute wealth from the producers to the non-producers which leads to economic destruciton for all. They also support decreasing spending in military because of some utopian belief that everyone in the world can get along, thus diplomacy instead of military strenght is more important.
Bush is not a pure conservative and has strayed from conservative principles many times. But Bush is not God or King. There are many factors that play into the ups and downs of economic cycles. Liberals just can't seem to wrap their warped minds around that concept.
June 16, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, give it up already. You're getting a beat down and you don't even know it. All you can come up with is something about Rush, and not every conservative listens to him, just like not every liberal listens to Al Sharpton. jay, it's apparent you listen to Rush. Are you a glutton for punishment?
This was a good article by Mike Rosen. He's right on all accounts. To some, pointing out the obvious is necessary since their blinders are getting in the way. Even then, Mike has done that and some people still have those blinders blocking the view!
June 16, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
wfan...i already addressed those myths as rhetoric vs. reality.
the republicans (not just w) have increased the size of govt, increased debt and increased those living in poverty.
can't run from the old track record.
cwilly...if you're using the same talking points as rush...that makes you a rushian footsoldier, whether you want to admit it or not.
June 16, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, the Democrats aren't innocent from increasing the size of government, and your idol, Obama, wants to increase it even more. Now he wants the government to get involved in retirement accounts for citizens. Don't even bother saying it doesn't increase government! Who do you think will manage the retirement accounts the government plans on? And since Nancy Pelosi has said she wants a windfall tax on retirement income, "so that the poor, uneducated and illegal citizens in our country can have some money too", I wonder about the motives of these two Democrats.
Anyway, using your logic about talking points, you're nothing but a Democrat puppet, since you can't think for yourself and only follow what you're told. You're definitely not a leader, that's for sure. Tell me, what does Rush say on his show, since you listen to him? And that begs the question, why do you listen to him if you don't like what he says? Glutton for punishment?
June 16, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" jay, the Democrats aren't innocent from increasing the size of government"
i never stated differently, cwilly, i'm just stating that the old talking points about republicans loving limited gov't is a laughably false one.
i don't know why you guys always pout like this when someone shoots holes in your propaganda.
if you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar at least have the intellectual honesty to just move on.
June 16, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
No, jay, you selectively like to make those accusations against Republicans while ignoring the Democrats doing the same. You're like the little kid who doesn't get his way so you point fingers at everyone else doing something wrong instead of manning up and saying you're just as much at fault as anyone else. Question for you jay, what failings do the Democrats have, in your opinion? I never see you critique Democrats, why not?
I think if you read your post at 12:18, and took your own advice, you'd be better off.
June 16, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"No, jay, you selectively like to make those accusations against Republicans while ignoring the Democrats doing the same"
not at all...i've ignored nothing.
as i said...those far right platitudes just don't hold water any longer...nothing more, nothing less. making that point doesn't make me "selective" in my accusations. It doesn't make me a "little kid who doesn't get his way". it doesn't mean that i'm "wrong". it just means that that far right wing rhetoric isn't correct.
again...instead of trying to attack me when you folks on the right get caught using this kind of crap, just grow up, accept it and move on.
i'd be happy to critique the dems...what areas of their policy stances did you have in mind? any specific examples that you'd like to share?
June 16, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, ignoring it is ignoring it, no matter how you try to spin it. It's something several posters have brought up about you, but you go back to the same old, same old. Nothing new, just the same "rhetoric" you've been using all the time.
Let us know how you feel about Obama's plan to tax oil companies for over $80 a barrel, which would only raise prices to the consumer...... an indirect tax if you will? Also, what do you think about Nancy Pelosi's idea of a windfall tax on retirement income, which she plans on taking to give to the "poor, uneducated and illegal citizens" in this country, as she has said? How do you feel about tax after tax being planned by Democrats? Do you think Bill Ritter was correct in saying the property tax freeze wasn't a tax increase, even though the courts have disagreed with his stance? What do you think of Obama's plan for getting government involved in retirement accounts? And his plan on getting government involved in health care? Those should be simple starts for you...........
June 16, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Let us know how you feel about Obama's plan to tax oil companies for over $80 a barrel"
i don't know anything about this proposal. please provide a link so i can get a feel for what you're talking about.
"Also, what do you think about Nancy Pelosi's idea of a windfall tax on retirement income"
again...no clue what you're talking about...please post a link.
"How do you feel about tax after tax being planned by Democrats?"
again...these blanket statements hurt more than they help. as far as tax and spend vs. spend and tax....i'll take the former over the latter all day long.
"Do you think Bill Ritter was correct in saying the property tax freeze wasn't a tax increase, even though the courts have disagreed with his stance?"
the courts ruled the law unconstitutional and i stand by their decision. if the statute needs to be modified or completely scrapped in order to further a plan that abides by the state's constitution then so be it. i completely agree with the courts on this one.
"What do you think of Obama's plan for getting government involved in retirement accounts?"
no clue...can you provide a link?
"And his plan on getting government involved in health care? "
on this i think it's ignorant to believe that americans are incapable of adopting some of the best practices of our global peers who are doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are.
June 16, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Here, jay......... follow the lead! This is a link on one article for his plan on a windfall tax for oil companies, one of many on the subject: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080609/p...
(Hint: type in what you want to find with the search engine, and it gives options on that subject..... not hard, ya' know)
Now, I'm not going to lead you to the rest. It shouldn't be hard to type something in, but if you want to say you have no clue, it's obvious..... and we won't bother with you when you're apparently uninformed. Why even post when you're not up on the subjects to even make an informed comment?
June 16, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
without the details i really can't say. i am all for ending corporate welfare for the oil companies, but don't think we should tax any heavier on normal profit margins.
that said, if it can be proven that oil companies are willfully manipulating the market to inflate their profit margins then, yes, we should increase their tax burden on profits garnered in this manner.
what is obvious it that you have no information that obama is going to increase taxes on oil companies if oil goes over $80 a barrel...so i guess we can say that you're more uninformed than i since yo'ure buying into this rush limbaugh talking points wholeheartedly instead of getting the facts for yourself.
no suprises there. i suspect the rest of your post is much more of the same.
June 16, 2008
4:38 p.m.
jay writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 16, 2008
8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Credibility, jay?
Here's some links so you can't avoid the subjects:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
(This one discusses plans on taxes)
http://1918.com/article.php?Obama_Wan...
(This one discusses his plans for taxing oil companies for over $80 a barrel)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/16/news/...
(This one covers his plan on getting government involved in retirement accounts)
I agree with you that oil companies shouldn't receive subsidies. And it might've happened except Democrats wanted to tie in a windfall profits tax with it when it came up for a vote, so it got voted down.
I give you credit for actually looking up the Pelosi deal, you got one right (funny how I stick the false one in to see what you would look up and you jumped on it, but you can't the others, lol). Ritter wanted to pass one over on the public with the "tax freeze", and he still has plans in the budget for education using that property tax increase. Guess he can say there's a shortfall in education funding without it and somehow, he'll try to blame someone else for it.
Going back to the article by Rosen, he's right about it all. I've read several posters who've used those comments and Mike has pointed out the failure in that approach.
I'd give up on the lame Rush rambling already, I don't listen to him and you shouldn't either.... but hey, if it gives you your ammo to attack anyone not siding with the liberal ideology, go ahead. I think I'll leave it at this and let you explain away.
June 17, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...i see someone had my myth debunking post removed.
funny...i don't remember using any profanity and don't remember doing anything but shooting holes in your conspiracy theories, cwilly.
furthermore, if you're using the same mythical talking points that rush is...that makes you a rushian footsoldiers.
can't run away from that one.\
"Here's some links so you can't avoid the subjects:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
(This one discusses plans on taxes)"
this is an opinion piece and doesn't link anything to obama's actual stances.
nice try.
the second "source" about a windfall tax on oil above $80/barrel neglects to mention the fact that obama has CONSIDERED suggestions for this proposal but not even come close to adopting it.
again...nice try.
finally the last one details obama's plans to help folks save for retirement with an 18 billion dollar a year...something i completely agree with. i'd much rather see that than mccain's 2 trillion dollar giveaway to corporate welfare.
as i said before...you guys continue to use these kind of far right wing mythical talking points and you'll continue to get the beatings.
June 17, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, you are truly clueless, and I can't say that about anyone but you. You see the world through the rose colored glasses that tint things the way you want to see them, whether the facts have proven you wrong or not. Unfortunately, Obama has mentioned the oil profits windfall tax several times, and all you can come up with is a disagreement to the facts. Let me help you a little bit, Obama has considered it, but can't put it into action unless he becomes President. Right now, can McCain or Obama put into action any of their plans for when they become President? I didn't think so.... so spare us your futility! The National Review piece is a take on his plans so far, but again, unless he beomes President, it's what Obama plans to do, not what he can do. On the idea of government getting involved in retirement, I really don't want them to. I can do a better job for myself than they can and I don't need to pay through taxes for someone else to do it. But maybe you do, and that's why you don't mind letting others lead you around. $18 billion a year, and that's just a start. I think Massachussets was okay with getting government involved in health care, and they sold it on the public that there wouldn't be a deficit. Unfortunately, those people were so wrong. Now that the deficit has reached $500 million+ in just a few years, they want the federal government to bail them out. Maybe you don't mind whizzing your money away, but a lot of us do, and we don't need the federal government wasting $18 billion a year doing something most of us are capable of doing for ourselves.
By the way, how do you feel about Obama voting for "corporate welfare" in 2005? Maybe you should look that up! Wait, you won't and you'll come back with more nonsense because you can't face the facts. As Jack said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
PS- I'd give up on the Rush thing already, you're beating it like a dead horse..... or your monkey, and either way, it's stale already and doesn't hold up. I might as well call you an Al Sharpton disciple..... one of his lackeys. What do you think? I bet you believed Al Gore when he said he invented the Internet, lmao!
So run and try to come up with something that will fit what you're trying to say, and continue to ignore the facts presented to you, either way, you're getting flushed down the toilet like a corn filled turd and as such, I'm wiping you off and I'm done with you.
June 19, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Cwillyrun,
The funny thing about jay is that most of the values I have gleaned from jay are at worst neutral. At least, in previous arguments with him, he has confessed to wanting smaller government and less taxes, while showing mixed love for capitalism.
My point is that he is confused. He was raised up Dem., but he doesn't really know why he continues to rip on conservatives and spew Left of Center rhetoric, even though he doesn't personally know how to back it up correctly. Often, he argues himself into a corner and then calls you names and declares victory as a tactic for clawing his way out of the corner. And sometimes he either sites one of the Left-Wing sources like moveon.org, or he sites a source that doesn't really prove his point (sometimes proves the other guys). Eli and I have torn into him on endless occasions.
His favorite thing is accusing you of strawman arguments.
He can't argue, nor (do I think), does he really know why he is arguing...he doesn't even know where he stands except that he hates conservatives.
June 19, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
cwilly...now that your opinions have been found to be based upon the opinions of others rather than facts...i think we're done here unless you have anything else to support your positions.
you said, "I'd give up on the Rush thing already, you're beating it like a dead horse". this is a laughably pathetic attempt to keep me from pointing out that you're using the same tired far right wing rhetoric that rush is...and won't work. sorry. you use that kind of crap and i'm going to call you on it. period.
poor spencer jr...
"Eli and I have torn into him on endless occasions."
"He was raised up Dem"
"he argues himself into a corner and then calls you names and declares victory as a tactic for clawing his way out of the corner"
lol...these are lies. thus, you spencer jr., just like eli, are still a liar. is this all you have? whining and pouting because you can't keep up intellectually? you and eli certainly share some of the same characteristics in that regard.
June 19, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Like I said Cwillrun, he calls you names and declares victory as a tactic for clawing his way out of the corner.
A dog chasing my own tail on the boring Thursday afternoon.
June 19, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
I have already proven you to be a liar twice regarding your straw man arguments, using your own definitions (that you could decide on by the way, you refused to pick one of the two sources that you cited). Last time your rebuttal was to mutter something about "right wing rhetoric" and run away, probably crying helplessly. Stop throwing your accusations around, you make an arse of yourself every time. If you're not man enough to admit that you lied about your use of straw man arguments, fine. I can't make you do it, no matter how many times I prove it to you. But please stop throwing around hypocritical accusations that you have no basis for. I am no liar.
June 19, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Correction:
"could not" decide on, not "could".
June 19, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...eli, you STILL have no clue what constitutes a strawman argument. maybe you should just stop trying.
June 19, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
It's not that I want to bring up that whole debate again, jay. That's not my point. You already ran away from that one twice, demonstrating your cowardice and incompetence when it comes to honest debate, so I give up. You're hopeless there, and quite clueless.
My point was that your accusations about myself and spencerr being "liars" are dishonest and hypocritical, and should stop. I won't hold my breath though, I'm sure you'll continue. Probably makes you feel much better about your pathetic self.
June 19, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I ran away from it?
i asked you for proof and you once again failed to provide an instance in which i set up a false argument (strawman) which i subsequently debunked (knocking down the strawman) instead of debunking one of your far right wing myths.
thus, you are a liar.
still.
don't pout about it.
June 19, 2008
6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"Subsequently debunked" is not included in the definition on Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster says "only to be easily confuted". Confute means "to overwhelm in argument". Your tactic is to dismiss the arguments of those you disagree with by distorting their words or making up something they never said. This dismissal would fall under both Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster definitions perfectly.
Also, it is instructive to remind you of the definition that you made up all by yourself not all that long ago, which was as follows:
"It is a strawman because it misrepresents a position. Period"
It amazes me that no matter how many times your idiocy is proven, you will continue to lie. When proven undeniably wrong, you will dance, avoid questions like the plague, flip flop on definitions, anything and everything you can possibly think of to run away like the pathetic little coward that you are. You lack the intelligence and personal integrity to hold an honest debate of any kind, and therefore are not worth my time. Go nag somebody closer to your own grade level. There are plenty of high schools around you could go to.
June 20, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
still whining about it?
move on...you're not making your case.
thus you are still a liar.
June 20, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
LOL! What an outstanding rebuttal, jay! Is this where you declare victory and run away again? I'd expect nothing less from you. Excellent work. Go get back to your 9/11 conspiracy theories, nobody hear wants to listen to your BS.
June 20, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Dogs chasing tails. As much as I hate to say it, having argued endlessly with the both of them, HolierThanThou is less confused and seemingly insane as jay. At least he will concede points sometimes. jay is infallible according to jay.
Eli, I see you are still marching along like a little foot soldier! Rush would be proud! I win, heh heh (mimicking pee wee herman's voice).
June 21, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
bugmenot writes:
Obviously The Rocky Mountain News does NOT enforce its Terms Of Service here. There are numerous examples of violations and none of them have been removed.
No wonder The Rocky Mountain News is losing money. The editor is a a lazy, incompetent hack with no morals or ethics.