OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[JRod]

No, you're looking at the New Deal in a light that is, of course, favorable, because that's how you WANT to see it. 34 and I were likely writing at the same time-I didn't see his post before I wrote about it. But, really, if it makes you feel big and smart, go ahead and think what you want.

I'm trying to be patient here, but your condescending nonsense is pushing it. You can take your last two sentences and ram them right back up from whence they came. You have no cause to use that schoolyard rhetoric with me. This crystal ball thing that you do when you assign motive to everyone in keeping with your opinion of what they're saying vs. what they might ACTUALLY be saying is beneath the level of discourse you speak of. You don't want to debate...you want to demean. Go ahead...I'm not the one that you're making look foolish.

(Jared, if you want to temp ban me for this, fine-it had to be said.)

1) It's not my view point nor am I looking at through any lens. If you followed the debate this far, Rob even makes mention that it's the minority view when looking at the New Deal. He agrees with it or at least some of it that it is the minority view. I do not. Economists and historians are split, unevenly, on the role of FDR's new deal and what actually got us out of the great depression. My view, until proven wrong by the minority view, is FDR's new deal policy coupled with WW2 were the reason. Many economists and historians in the majority take a similar view, though they are more learned than me.

2) If Rob has a problem with it, he should respond. Respond on fact not personal shots.

3) Like you always do, you never argue with facts or reason. I said you three are wrong in your assertion. Did you make a counter argument? Did you base your post on anything other than inflammatory language?

If am wrong...prove it with science, fact, and reason.

Or make a one-liner or pull a FatPitcher and say that you can't debate because you question what you assume I know rather than the statements I post. Discrediting an argument through ridicule is a tactic. It's been an effective one through the years, in politics, science, and just about every where. It's one you use regularly.

For once, if you are going to respond do it with facts or pick apart where my logic hurts my argument.

I didn't make any school yard attacks or personal jabs on this post... no it's up to you to prove where I'm wrong with facts or logic.

[FatPitcher]

OK, let's start here, JRod: do you think that artificially inflating prices and wages through government controls and allowing businesses to collude, cartel-style, is a good response to an economic crisis?

Also, did you read the study I linked earlier? There are facts and logic there. Since you haven't addressed anything in it, I am guessing no.

In fact, you have not backed up your argument with anything but "most historians agree with me." If that is your idea of "facts and logic," then this is going to be yet another fruitless debate.

[matthewk]

Well, since you're too lazy to finish what you started...

There have been too many unnecessary comments like this in the thread the last day or so. DEFCON level is now 2. If anyone is not acting respectfully to other posters (e.g., unnecessary comments like above), 24-hour temp ban.

Thanks for singling me out.

I guess I'll have to stick to the more subtle insults like:

"Oh, really?"
"Nice job "
and "We both know..."

Edit: I forgot my favorite one form the past 24 hours:
"Are you really concerned about the integrity of the voting process or only that organizations which registers lower-income voters, who are likely to vote Democrat, be held to close scrutiny? "

[Jackdog]

Well, since you're too lazy to finish what you started...

There have been too many unnecessary comments like this in the thread the last day or so. DEFCON level is now 2. If anyone is not acting respectfully to other posters (e.g., unnecessary comments like above), 24-hour temp ban.

Thanks for singling me out.

I guess I'll have to stick to the more subtle insults like:

"Oh, really?"
"Nice job "
and "We both know..."

Edit: I forgot my favorite one form the past 24 hours:
"Are you really concerned about the integrity of the voting process or only that organizations which registers lower-income voters, who are likely to vote Democrat, be held to close scrutiny? "

Don't forget "The whole "I'm about personal responsibility" and being "responsible" reeks of passing judgement and moral superiority."

That was brilliant!

I understand what Jared is doing,but I do agree that he shouldn't have singled you out.

Jared,we are mostly adults here. We come to DSP because we can talk about anything here. We've been doing it for years. Locking up this thread and temp banning isn't what made this forum what it is. We are all pretty good at keeping this place from turning into the cesspool that SR became.

You know politics is a rough sport,it brings out strong emotions. The DEFCON thing isn't needed. Nothing discussed here has warrented any bans or locks. Same with the "American Carol" debate. IMO your getting way too sensitive man. Dump the DEFCON bullshit and let us police ourselves.

If you see racist attacks or personal insults that would make Jerry Springer cringe then I would agree. Unless we get a shitload of new members,that ain't gonna happen. We have a great group of members here that don't see eye to eye on things sometimes. We all have our balls in tact and can take a snide remark every now and then. It is what it is.

All that being said,this is your baby. You can do what you want with DSP. I've always thought you've run this forum very well. Please don't take any offense to this post. That's not my intention. It's just my opinion.


When does my ban start??

[XXXIV]

Hey. Dont get me wrong. I think FDR did a great job under some very trying circumstances. I loved the man. Enough so that I voted for him three times.

[Feanor]

FDR was a stand-up guy, no doubt.

[Jackdog]

Hey. Dont get me wrong. I think FDR did a great job under some very trying circumstances. I loved the man. Enough so that I voted for him three times.

[GTHobbes]

I've got to admit, it's a pretty interesting political strategy for McCain to piss off rather than pander to the GOP conservative base:

"Liberals who might actually be inclined to support a welfare check such as this are already going to vote for Barack Obama, and conservatives, who view this as irresponsible and even apostasy, are turned off by it," Lewis said. "This is both bad policy and bad politics."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/ ... index.html

[RobVarak]

This has become a really long tangent, but let me be clear.

I think the revisioninsts' arguments are logical and supported by evidence.

My view, until proven wrong by the minority view, is FDR's new deal policy coupled with WW2 were the reason.

This is social science, not physics or chemistry. "Proving" anything is only a matter of presenting the evidence for social consumption. Just because a particular model for this or any other issue of social science is in the minority or the majority does not have any bearing on whether it is more "right" or "wrong." Historiography is comprised of myth, marketing, journalism, ideology etc.

That said, I find the arguments presented by the economists positing the revisionist view persuasive and logically coherent. There is certainly no fundamental flaw in their argument as obtuse and obvious as causality.

I don't see how their evidence was "cherry picked" given the fact that we're talking about several different researchers using a wide range of data. Most rely heavily on the fundamental economic barometers of GDP, unemployment etc. These are serious social scientists and economists doing scholarly work. It's subject to criticism certainly, but dismissing an argument about history because it's "hindsight" is foolish.

Here is another treatise on the topic. Maybe this one will allay your concerns about metrics and causality.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_4_higgs.pdf

As you can see from Higgs' work, this opinion of the efficacy of the New Deal is not new. Moreover, while it is still the minority view of historians, it is a sizable minority, and there's an even larger group of economists who subscribe to the theory.

Again, I'm just pointing out that not swallowing the mythic brilliance of FDR and challenging the real effects of the New Deal is a legitimate intellectual position...not just "history vs. me" as your glib dismissal stated.

[Jared]

First, my apologies for singling Matt out...it wasn't my intention to do that...I actually had a series of posts that I was going to quote in raising the DEFCON. But right now, I have family in town and lots of work, so I simply didn't have time to lay that out. There were multiple instances of that, from multiple posters.

And unfortunately, this has continued after my warning. To respond to Jackdog:

I understand what Jared is doing,but I do agree that he shouldn't have singled you out.

Jared,we are mostly adults here. Wink We come to DSP because we can talk about anything here. We've been doing it for years. Locking up this thread and temp banning isn't what made this forum what it is. We are all pretty good at keeping this place from turning into the cesspool that SR became.

You know politics is a rough sport,it brings out strong emotions. The DEFCON thing isn't needed. Nothing discussed here has warrented any bans or locks. Same with the "American Carol" debate. IMO your getting way too sensitive man. Dump the DEFCON bullshit and let us police ourselves.

Unfortunately, when people have policed themselves, what things have turned into is, not a discussion, but just a bunch of insulting other posters (see the last time I locked the thread). I've got no desire to encourage that kind of behavior, and absolutely no desire to moderate it. It's a total waste of my time.

So then I have a choice: either let this thread go with no moderation, or to moderate it, limiting personal attacks. And one of the reasons I think SR became a cesspool was because it had absolutely no moderation. Hence why I try and mod leniently, but still mod.

Coming to this thread, there have been a lot of personal attacks that I don't like. Instead of temp-banning half of the posters in this thread, I'm just going to lock it, probably for 24 hours, maybe shorter or longer. PM me with your opinions on this if you'd like. And I am happy to hear anyone's opinion, and thanks Jack for letting me know yours.