Pledge to America, An Analysis

"It is asking Americans to return us to the disastorous policies that got us in the mess to begin with"

You must be just getting all your information from MSNBC. :)

Nope, unlike some I form my own opinions.

Well it's nice to see you again Mr. Pot. Funny how when a conservative says anything they must be getting their information from Fox or Rush, they are incapable of forming their own opinions.

yeah, I guess Mike wants to keep the outstanding policies we have now, which are:

-Allow Nancy Pelosi to spend whatever she wants on her self and family with tax payer money

-Continue to have 1.5 trillion dollar deficits while expanding government.

-Continue to bail out unions left and right with no hope of EVER paying off a deficit.

-Continue to blame Bush for everything.

-Talk about making sacrifices for your country while the hen baskes in Italy in luxurious resorts.

-Blame republicans for everything if it won't stick to Bush. Even when they have good ideas and intentions for scaling abck government, which is the ONLY way we're getting out of this mess.

The biggest mess Bush left us in was an expanded government. Obama has decried Bush for messing it all up and his idea to get us out is more of the same. I just can't stop laughing! This was supposed to be evern better than the "not Bush" other guys Obama trashed...and it's nothing but Bush on crack and steriods!!!!

Hey Mikey I have a serious question for you.

What exactly does me having to create over 40 new 1099's year for all the vendors I spend over $600 with have to do with healthcare?

In case you were wondering, since you're a teacher, most businesses, even small, have accountants do their taxes. It's slightly more complex than you getting your Obamabailout paycheck. Well, the deal is, it costs money to have them do this work. I know it's weird, the government should be paying for this, just like Guillermo's college education, but the fact is, I have to pay for it.

So how does me having to pay my accountants a lot more money next year for all these 1099's to be drawn up going to improve healthcare for millions?

Just curious. I doubt you'll even answer since this is a serious issue about the fact that out elected officials don't even write bill, let alone read them, and then they pass them and we are left to deal with what they have done after all the facts come out.

Justin,

"In case you were wondering, since you're a teacher, most businesses, even small, have accountants do their taxes....Well, the deal is, it costs money to have them do this work"

Don't you see this is job creation stimulating the economy. These extra forms will necessitate the hiring of more accountants.

"Allow Nancy Pelosi to spend whatever she wants on her self and family with tax payer money"

That has been debunked so many times it's just tiring now, but you go ahead and keep up the lie. I'm sure someone will buy it.

"Continue to have 1.5 trillion dollar deficits while expanding government."

The deficit has shrunk under Obama.

"Continue to blame Bush for everything."

No just the Congressional Republicans. Yeah that's a joke, but seriously the only ones that keep bringing up Bush are his supporters.

"Talk about making sacrifices for your country while the hen baskes in Italy in luxurious resorts."

I don't even know what the means.

"Blame republicans for everything if it won't stick to Bush. Even when they have good ideas and intentions for scaling abck government, which is the ONLY way we're getting out of this mess."

You mean IF they have good ideas and intentions? The only way we are getting out of this mess? Says who?

I can't answer your 1099 question because I am not a tax accountant. That's something you will have to ask him.

SW

"Well it's nice to see you again Mr. Pot. Funny how when a conservative says anything they must be getting their information from Fox or Rush, they are incapable of forming their own opinions."

And I see you are completely incapable of acting like an adult. I never said anything remotely close to what you claim I am but hey what's new with that?

That would be correct GI, if the GOP were admitting that these policies have already been tried and failed, but they are not. They are pretending that these policies have never been tried before.

"The biggest mess Bush left us in was an expanded government."

Really Justin? After 8 years of unneeded wars, purposely scaring Americans for political gain, ignoring the Constitution in order to scare Americans, firing judges because they refused to deliever politically favorable decisions, etc, etc, the biggest mess is expanded government in your mind?

Okay then.

So Justin and SW, what in the "pledge" are good ideas?

Oh yes, the rich burn their extra millions of dollars in the fire for warmth. They don't spend it on things like hiring more people and expanding the size of their businesses or buying huge jets, buses, yachts and fancy cars that are made by middle class American workers who would have no job if rich people didn't buy those things. Let's all just pretend that when rich people have extra money that they just let it sit in a big vault and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck so we can all keep hating rich people for having lots of money. Poor people don't create jobs but they have jobs because of people with more money than they do. It's called the real world, stop by for a visit sometime.

"It's called the real world, stop by for a visit sometime."

Yet both your examples were very unreal, go figure. Trickle down economics does not work. The people that have the money (that is the ones that earned it not the ones the inherited it) have that money because they knew how to invest. They do not, contrary to your belief, go spend it in the economy.

Everyone. Stop what your doing and listen to the messiah beck he knows all!

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009280025?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=f...

People of wealth not only invest wisely, they had to earn it first. They worked longer hours than most. During that time, they learned a craft. They invest that time, money (capital), into themselves. A very few make it, most will fail and re-enter the work force smarter and wiser, only to try again. Those that make it, usually with an improved product or service, often become very successful. A demand develops for their product or service and they try to fill it. Soon that supply of their product or service begins to dwindle, so the hire and train others to provide said product or service. It's called hiring.

Trickle down does work, as long as the tax structure does not artificially inhibit it. As business owner become increasingly successful, they hire employees to carry out day to day labor and management. The pay is dependent on the specialization of the skills the labor force offers. Unskilled labor doesn't pay well, skilled labor on the other hand, pays very well, as does well educated labor. See HVAC labor for an example. As the pay scale for skilled and educated labor goes up, so do their tastes in what they can afford. Some one has to meet their demands. And so it goes.

What you just described is not trickle down economics, it is simple supply and demand.

Right now, the rich are paying less taxes as a percentage of their wealth than at any time in our recorded history yet our economy continues to struggle.

What's more interesting is the most rich people actually favor more taxes not less. The only "people" (as defined by the Supreme Court recently) complaining about raising taxes are corporations.

I just have a quick question: Without Googling what is the first phrase in the Declaration of Independence?

Personally I think that if we continue doing what we have been we will soon be in a situation that rivals Mexico. With the recession and everything else happening we are generating a larger number of poverty stricken people.

With this large pool of low income people it will be extremely easy for the Mexican cartels to recruit soldiers here in the US. The same thing has been going on in Mexico for quite some time. Perhaps though we need violence on that kind of level for people to start understanding that prohibition doesn't work.

Yes MichealHendricks, that was supply\demand economics. It works every time it has ever been used, without a centralized artificial influence. It is the bases of every successful business decision. When used as a guide for career choices, it is also successful. Those who know how to use it, are successful. You should try it.

In Congress

My point, which you conveniently forgot, was that supply/demand has nothing to do with trickle down. They are two totally independent and different economic theories.

Not sure what the personal attack at the end has to do with anything, but okay.

When in the course of human events was the first phrase Chunky. In congress was added after Jefferson finished the document.

Just as supply\demand sets the price of goods and services, there is a supply\demand of specialized skill to produce those goods and services. There is also a supply\demand of specialized skills to deliver those goods and services. There is a supply\demand skills to service those goods and services. And now, there is a supply\demand to recycle those goods and services into a new product. And so the cycle begins again. As you can see, "trickle down" and supply\demand, or economics (the allocation of scarce resources) go hand-in-hand.

Yes it is true "trickle down" does not affect everyone, only those who choose to participate will benefit. It is wise to keep your skills and education levels honed to take advantage of changing economic conditions. It is true, even in this time of uncertainty, as a door closes behind you, a window is left open. It is up you to climb through. Some one will.

That was NOT a personal attack at the end of my post, but words of encouragement.

As for the first phrase of the Declaration of Independence, YOU didn't specify.

You've yet to explain how trickle down and supply/demand go hand in hand, you just keep claiming that they do. You've explained how supply/demand work and then just say they go hand in hand.

They are two totally different economic theories. Supply/demand is a naturally occurring economic factor, trickle down is a government forced economic factor and it has never worked.

I knew your knowledge of economic principle were weak, but I didn't realize there was a total lack of. I thought I had spelled it out to you in fairly simplistic terms, so simple in fact, my 13 year old daughter understood it fully. Try checking into an accredited college and take some business and economics courses. One hundred level should do.

"Trickle down" a government forced economic factor? No, it is a natural function of supply\demand economics.

Oh here we go with the questioning of intelligence once again, which must of course mean that you have missed something.

Trickle down as used in the United States is not a natural function. If it were there would be no need for any Republican Administration to "force" it with tax cuts. Trickle down is top down, while supply/demand is mostly bottom up. If there is no demand from the bottom there can be no supply from the top.

You never spelled it out Chunky. You never even defined it. You have spent several posts describing supply and demand and then claiming that trickle down is a "natural" function but never explaining how. Which either means you don't know how it is or you are fabricating the connection. Either way, the missing information falls on you, but as always you blame someone else for not understanding your loosely based or missing information.

Mike,

" I never said anything remotely close to what you claim I am but hey what's new with that?"

How can you so delude yourself? There have been several times that you accuse me of getting my information from Fox and Rush and I've seen you accuse others who post conservative posts of the same thing. Do you not remember doing so?

I'd also like you to think about something you said to Justin: "Really Justin? After 8 years of unneeded wars, purposely scaring Americans for political gain, ignoring the Constitution in order to scare Americans, firing judges because they refused to deliever politically favorable decisions, etc, etc, the biggest mess is expanded government in your mind?"

I believe one could make an argument that almost all of the things you mention are indeed the expansion of government to which Justin is referring.

Ahh SW how I have missed you and changing or simplifying your arguments to make you appear right. You claimed that I had said at some point that conservatives are unable to form their own opinions. I have never said that. Instead of focusing on that you go back to the Fox News thing. Well it is true a lot of you do get your talking points from Fox News. You can deny it as much as you like, but when a new talking point appears on Fox News and then one of you suddenly start using that talking point on here it is really obvious that you got your talking point from Fox News or another website. You usually don't even paraphrase the talking point you copy it word for word.

Does that, however, lead to me claiming that conservatives are incapable of forming their own opinions? Nope, it doesn't.

The difference here is that when I take a key line or phrase from somewhere I will admit to it, you on the other hand deny deny deny and then make absurd claims like you did.

Then, when you are caught, you change your argument to something different altogether. Same crap, different day.

You know, it's funny, five days ago I posed a question about what the good points were in the "Pledge to America". So far there have been no responses.

Oh I'm sure compared to you, in your great self esteem, I know little about the economy. However, I live it, I know it first hand. You on the other hand, only read about it. The thimble you speak of, you can climb in it, Little Tiny Man.

Chunky keep getting up everyday and going to work. That is just the way we were raised and we don't know any better.

Wallis

Read the article about the McCook Gazette paper carriers. I played football and ran track so I didn't have a Gazette route. Instead, I had an Omaha World Herald route because I could get up at 4 am and be finished by 6 am. Dr. Ryder was the head World Herald guy in McCook, That was 1980-1984. Anyone remain Doc Ryder? He taught 7th grade history and had a PHD.

Wow now you are just being insulting. You have nothing of value to add to the debate so you just flat out insult?

"You on the other hand, only read about it." What does that even mean. Are you suggesting without any proof, as usual, that I don't work?

It is really simply Chunky, you claim that trickle down goes hand in hand with supply and demand but you offer no proof that they do other than to continuously say that they are and then without offering any proof to back up you question the intelligence of anyone who questions you and yet you still offer no proof.

So I'll ask again, what's your proof? Hopefully you can answer without insults next time.

I guess is should have read;

Guillermo,

Oh I'm sure compared to you, in your great self esteem, I know little about the economy. However, I live it, I know it first hand. You on the other hand, only read about it. The thimble you speak of, you can climb in it, Little Tiny Man.

I let my 13 year old daughter read your posts, and she said, "OMG, ROLF, I have friends who think like that. He thinks like a girl. LOL"

That post wasn't directed towards you.

I realize this is an exercise if futility, but here goes.

We will use wallismarsh as an example. Wallis, if this bothers you, you may hunt me down and kill me.

Wallis is now earning $1,000,000 per year. He decides now is the time for a new house, a dream house. First he has to hire a real estate sale company to find a suitable location. They don't do this for free, so Wallis agrees to the terms of the contract for a fee, which he must pay. In this case, the real estate sales company might use the fee Wallis paid to put up a new sign. Sign companies don't do this for free, they charge money for this. The sign company might use this money towards the purchase of a new truck. Auto dealerships don't give out free truck, they are sold. That monies might be used for a remodel of the sales floor. Car sales persons and secretaries don't do this, they hire a contractors, electrical, plumbing, drywall, painters, etc, who do not donate their time and supplies and equipment, they charge for their work. They has several employees, who don't work for free, the contractor pays them a wage. Some of those employees will want to buy a vehicle, remodel a house, pay for a childs education. Here auto dealerships, contractors, and teachers are involved. Do we need to expand on this idea?

Let's say Wallis decides to build a new house. The empty property is bought, and the real estate company hires a title company to close the deat. Last time I checked, title companies do not do their work for free, and they have employees. Those employees do not work for free, so a wage is paid. Those employee do live in an empty house, the have furnishings they want to buy. They go to the store, where those furnishing are not given away, they are sold. And so on it goes. Do we need further expansion on this thought?

The real estate transaction is closed, Wallis pays them all their fees, including the title company's. Now the fun begins. Wallis's wife hires an architecture firm to design the house. I do not believe they do their work for free, and they will hire an engineering firm to check all the engineering stuff, soil type, environmental concerns, depth of footer, etc. That bill will be added on the Wallis's architrcture bill. Those firms will use that money to update their equipment. Companies exist to provide them with the equipment they need. And it's not free and someone must sell it and some one must service it. A lo of those people sell and service on commission. Architects, engineers, sales persons, service techs, don't want to sit in a house with a bunch of broken furniture and wore out vehicles, they buy new. And so that cycle continues. Are we getting the point yet?

The blue print is agreed upon, and now the construction begins. Excavators must first dig out the footings and basement areas. Most general contractors do not have this equipment, so they hire it out. Excavators don't work for free, and they have employees to pay. And the cycle goes on. Plumbing contractor don't work for free, neither to their employees. Electrical contractors are not free, and their employees don't work for free. Framers, drywallers painters, termite pretreaters and etc all don't work for free. They use their fees to reinvest into their businesses, to pay themselves and their employees. Who in turn use their wages and salaries to buy things. Do we see a trend yet?

The key to "trickle down" is to be an active participant in it. A history teacher, or a professional college student probably will NOT be able to participate. And that probably explains your hatred of, and jealously of those who do. Again, they key is to PARTICIPATE.

Nothing in what you described is trickle down economics, it's supply and demand. Maybe this is why you keep asserting that trickle down works because you truly do not understand what it is.

Trickle down is an economic policy that is started by the government giving tax breaks and tax rebates to the rich. The idea is that with extra money that the rich are now recieving through less taxes and rebates they will then put in the economy and it will trickle down through out the economic system.

You go ahead and keep lobbing insults at me all day long Chunky, the only thing you keep proving is that you do not understand it (except for the participation point which I will give you). All you have done is continually describe supply and demand. But at least now I understand why you can't link trickle down to supply and demand (two completely different economic theories) you honestly think they are the exact same thing.

"A history teacher, or a professional college student probably will NOT be able to participate."

Great example of class warfare. Because you don't believe either one of those could ever participate you automatically see less of them.

When government is at it's most efficient, people and business get to keep more of their earnings, "trickle down" occurs. Such is not the case now, with government running at it's most inefficient, "tickle down" in not occurring as it should. Nonetheless, "trickle down" is a function of supply\demand. Right now the supply of investment capital is low, the demand for it is high. Therefore, you see the high unemployment numbers, and business unable to reinvest money into capital.

Well at least you finally explained though the definition does not fit for the Reagan years. It has been stated on here that trickle down worked. Going by your definition of trickle down there is no way it could have worked because the policy was started in the midst of a recession with high employment numbers.

"government running at it's most inefficient, "tickle down" in not occurring as it should."

Except that the numbers have improved. The economy has improved and by your definition trickle down should be thriving, yet it isn't.

Last I heard Chunky businesses and the rich are keeping more of their earnings now than they have in recent history. So there is a disconnect, companies and people are able to keep more of their money than before yet they still aren't circulating their money into the economy. They are saving it, which honestly makes their tax cuts moot.

I'm still waiting to hear what the good parts of the "pledge" are.

There was a rally today in Washington by liberals. Here is a story on CNN.com about it:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/02/one.nation.rally/index.html?hpt=T2

What is interesting is that while the story talks about the crowd size for Beck's rally, it mentions nothing about the crowd size for the rally today. The unofficial number at the moment taken with satellite photos (the exact same way Beck's rally) showed somewhere between 175,000 and 200,000 which would be larger than Beck's.

Fox News website has a link to it but also a negative opinion piece right below it and also does not mention the crowd size but does allude to the "vastness" of the Beck crowd.

MSNBC issues almost the exact same story that Fox News does word for word.

Gotta love that "liberal" media bias extolling and propagating this story.

Ok Mike, you asked for, here it is. It's all good!

Okay, any serious answers?

Michael,

It is true, businesses are keeping more of their earnings rather than reinvesting back into their business. It's called SAVINGS. All properly managed businesses put part of their earnings into savings, so that they can operate during a period of uncertainty. Right now, we are IN that period of uncertainty. The money put into savings will hopefully allow businesses to make payroll and cover short term operating expenses in the hope certainty returns.

Prior to former President Ronald Reagan, the tax code prevented "trickle down" to effectively work. Thankfully President Reagan was able to convince the rino controlled senate, and the Democratic controlled house to adopt his plan.

Guillermo,

I can only assume you are talking about the "Unified Budget". It is here we have the "on budget" items as spelled as "discretionary spending". And the "off budget" items, which are not subjected to the budgetary process, such as social security taxes. A very neat little accounting trick, not available to you and me, allows the "off budget" items to be counted as an asset on the reported deficit column. I can also be counted as a liability on the accrued deficit column, AKA, the national debt. It's a neat little law congress gave itself.

You are really into circular logic aren't you Chunky. No matter that facts that are thrown at you, you can always change the argument just enough to give the impression that trickle down economics and supply and demand economics are one in the same.

In the end, though, you still have yet to prove they are and then you throw out more theories as to why you are correct. Though it is interesting that by your theory before the 1980s that trickle down never occurred. It is a complete fallacy but one you and those who still believe trickle down works (despite the evidence showing that it doesn't) will continue to push.

an exercise in futility, man I wasn't kidding!

I have searched high and low to find where I said supply\demand economics and "trickle down were one and the same. Couldn't find it. I have found where I claimed "trickle down" works best when supply\demand economics were allowed to operate at is fullest.

And where did I ever write that "trickle down" did not exist before 1980?

At the great risk of being "flagged", or worse, being removed from the Gazette's blogs, YOU LIE!

Does Mike flag users?

Our price target of 1150 for the S&P 500 in the first week of October was met at 1149. Expect some trading range activity with a low of 1080 possible. The trend is still up and expect the top to be around 1287-1387.

Bought oil September 22 at $75. We "could" see $125-$150 by next summer.

As my lasts posts have been removed this is my last regarding this trade. It should be a good one. Every 18 months or so there are great opportunities.

Wallis

"Prior to former President Ronald Reagan, the tax code prevented "trickle down" to effectively work."

I will admit that I left out a word. I should have said that alluded to the idea that trickle down wasn't around before 1980. Considering the idea of trickle down didn't exist, however, until the Reagan Administration the idea is still there.

You have stated several times trickle down and supply and demand go hand in hand or one feeds off the other. You have still yet to clearly show how that happens, however, factually. You have shown how you believe it works but again it was a fallacy as there is nothing to back up your claim.

Yes, wallis, since you brought it up again, I do flag users when there is cause to flag. If there is no cause I don't flag. Contrary to you, SW, CPB, and several other users I don't flag users because they have hurt my feelings. I only flag when the terms of service have clearly been violated. I don't care who violates them, whether they are conservative or liberal, agree with me or don't agree with me. If they violate I flag. I was the one responsible for Senior Loud's ban from the site because he had simply gone too far and was violating the terms of service on a regular basis, but no it had nothing to do with your false charge against him. There is no where in the terms of service that forbid one user asking another to go to a bar for drinks.

Mike,

Does it annoy you when you ask a question that doesn't get answered? If so, you know how I feel when I ask you questions.

"You can deny it as much as you like, but when a new talking point appears on Fox News and then one of you suddenly start using that talking point on here it is really obvious that you got your talking point from Fox News or another website. You usually don't even paraphrase the talking point you copy it word for word."

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. If I say something that is in line with something you heard on Fox or from Rush, you obviously pay much more attention to them than I do, you claim I am getting that information from those sites without citing them. Interestingly, the most I have heard from Rush in the past year was last night's "Family Guy" Oh wait, I must be outright lying again because you "know" I get my info from him and thus are incapable of coming up with the same thought on my own.

Mike:

" I don't flag users because they have hurt my feelings"

I don't mean to burst your bubble, ok that's a fib, I really do mean to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure hurting the feelings of others is prohibited in the terms of service, if one wants to get particular about it. Flagging a remark doesn't equate with the banishment of flaggee to the outer rim territories, just brings the issue to the moderators attention.

You might want to check the terms of service SW if you think "hurt feelings" is in there, if you want to get particular.

If you want to get even more particular I don't base whether I flag a user based off of whether my feelings have been hurt. That good enough?

Oddly enough, SW, in that long (I'm guessing meant to funny) rant you went on you never actually touched on the quote you quoted me on. The point I made is that when a new talking point makes it way through the right wing media it always appears on this website from one of the posters (yes you included) pretty quickly sometimes even on the same day.

I answer all your questions to the best of my ability. Accepting or ignoring my answers falls on you, not me.

Mike,

Ah I see now: "I answer all your questions to the best of my ability". I always thought you just chose to not answer questions, now I believe you don't have the ability.

I'm sorry which long (funny) rant are you talking about? I haven't really had a long rant on this thread that I recall. I did use a quote from you to illustrate a point, it didn't need to be responded to, as it was an example.

The point I have tried to make several times but you don't seem to be getting is the difference between a causal and a correlative relationship. Because one person says something and another says almost the same thing, doesn't mean that one got the idea from the other. They may have but it is also possible they just had a similar idea. This is especially true when responding to a current event, two people hear about the event at roughly the same time, so they can each form an opinion about it which may or may not coincide with the others'. When you use your interpretation that someone's idea was influenced by someone else as a reason to ignore it rather than respond you are in the wrong in my view.

Ahh starting out with an insult to my intelligence, once again SW. That's a good way to get the rest of your post ignored.

I didn't question your intelligence at all, if you have an inferiority complex about it, I can't help that.

So do I read this right? You don't flag people for hurting your feeling but you refuse to listen to someone who does? I'd prefer you flag me.

SW, don't flatter yourself. Yes you read it completely wrong. If you think what you post on here has any effect on me what-so-ever you think to highly of yourself.

"I always thought you just chose to not answer questions, now I believe you don't have the ability."

Questioning my intelligence. Of course, I'm sure this is something that you are now going to deny that you have ever done. SSDD

Mike,

Oh no I don't deny it, I've often questioned your intelligence in writing and much more often not in writing, so you are wrong once again. Don't get me wrong, if I don't find you intelligent it doesn't mean I think less of you than if I found you to be intelligent.

I think you are overly sensitive about it, funny that if it isn't getting to you, you can't seem to help but respond.

A lack of ability doesn't denote a lack of intelligence, in my opinion it is your posts which make it apparent, it just means you can't do it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your inability was due to a lack of knowledge or skill not a lack of intelligence.

The funny thing to me is you don't even see what you do which is offensive to me as being wrong, so I've decided to stop trying to point it out to you.

You've already denied it once on another blog SW.

What I think is funny is that you actually think that you are getting under my skin. I don't reply because you are getting to me. I reply because you have once again changed an argument or given credit to a statement you made to someone else.

I couldn't care less whether I am getting under your skin or not.

So you assumed my inability was due to a lack of knowledge or intelligence. Can anyone else point out what's wrong with this sentence?

"The funny thing to me is you don't even see what you do which is offensive to me as being wrong, so I've decided to stop trying to point it out to you."

Maybe you can point out what you just said then because this moronic no ability liberal has not a clue what you just posted, but I'll try. Maybe you think I don't see because you have never before now stated that I have ever offended you. For someone who needs everything explained to him it's odd that you think I can read your mind.

Mike:

"So you assumed my inability was due to a lack of knowledge or intelligence. Can anyone else point out what's wrong with this sentence?"

I don't know about anyone else but what I can point out is that isn't what I said so if you trying to attribute that position to me please don't.

" For someone who needs everything explained to him it's odd that you think I can read your mind."

Ahh, perhaps light begins to dawn in Mike's wearied mind. You say all the time you know what's in my mind. If you would stop doing that I would stop being offended. That is one of the two things that offends me on these blogs. I've pointed that out before and was heckled for it. Do you need me to go back and post a bunch of your quotes or will you agree you say it often?

"I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your inability was due to a lack of knowledge or skill not a lack of intelligence."

Those are your exact words SW. You assumed my lack of inability was due to a lack of knowledge but not lack of intelligence. What's the difference?

I would still like to know how I offended you. I can't read your mind but I know your tactics. Those are two completely different things. I have never said I know what's in your mind (yet another example of you making up a statement and then attributing it to me) just that I know how you operate.

Mike:

"Those are your exact words SW. You assumed my lack of inability was due to a lack of knowledge but not lack of intelligence. What's the difference?"

Excellent question! See you are capable of asking for help when you don't know something, I'm proud of the steps you're taking, keep it up!

I believe I am an intelligent person; however, I do not have the ability to perform surgery. My inability is not in any way due to a lack of intelligence rather that is not a skill set I have. Similarly a surgeon may be intelligent and able to perform surgery but is not able to replace a water pump on his car. Again no fault of lack of intelligence lack of ability.

Do you agree or disagree, why or why not?

Guillermo,

We've had this discussion before, and I've said if I misrepresent a person's argument I do not do it on purpose and would like clarification. The only times I have done so on purpose I thought they were so outrageous that people would understand them as satire.

I don't believe I have EVER said I know what another person thinks or believes. I have said what I believe they think but I would never be so rude as to state my perception is the only reality. If I have done so I apologize and if I do, feel free to point it out and I will immediately apologize, sometimes what I type isn't really what I thought I typed.

Mike on the other hand often says he "knows" what I think, he doesn't say the thinks he knows or that he believes he knows, by doing so he is explicitly representing my thoughts without regard to reality.

I also don't believe I've ever changed the wording of a person's statement and used that as a method to criticize them as I've seen Mike do on more than one occasion, the most recently being a couple of posts back. Go ahead, look at my post then look how Mike presented my position.

" you smell like a fecalpheliac"

****, I forgot to shower before work today, how did you know?

Mike,

"I would still like to know how I offended you"

You have offended me by stating you "know" what I think .

You, as well as most of the other posters, have offended me by giving a pass to the use of the "r-word" I consider the use of that word out of a medical context to be an example of bigotry and hate speech. It is hurtful to a group of people who seldom have the intent or ability to give harm, demeans them and reduces society's view of thier humanity.

That's really about the only two things that people do here that really bothers me.

Guillermo,

Sure, you are able to defend yourself from that charge on this board. You do so admirably so I don't feel it is necessary to do so. If you had defended those with cognitive disabilities when it came up I would have applauded you for doing so and probably not said anything about it. You can call me names all you like, but I think you should realize you are criticizing me for the same thing you have done without even having a justification for doing so. You may disagree with my reason for not criticizing others for making racially deleterious statements but they do exist.

Can you tell me why you stand up for racial groups but not for the cognitively challenged and how you justify it to yourself?

I don't now recall if you are one of the "open-minded" Liberal posters who thought it was fun to criticize me for my stance for those with disabilities by making a game out of using the "r-word" several times. I do recall reformedrightwinger doing so and that is when I lost a great deal of respect for him.

"Mike on the other hand often says he "knows" what I think"

There you go again. I have never uttered those words and yet you assign them to me as if I have so that you can now make an argument.

I have never claimed to know what you think. What I have said is that I know how you operate. This is yet another case of knowing that you will assign words to people that never said them in order to make your own argument. I know you do this and you never fail to do it.

I also know, that even though you have no proof that I have ever said I know what you think you will continue to push that idea because it is one that you can argue against.

"I would still like to know how I offended you"

You have offended me by stating you "know" what I think ."

No SW I have never stated that I know what you think. That is a figment of your imagination. The better question then, is why are you so offended by what you imagine other people to have said?

"Can you tell me why you stand up for racial groups but not for the cognitively challenged and how you justify it to yourself?"

Can you point to a time when GI hasn't stood up for mentally challenged SW? If you can't then you are guilty once again of assigning words and beliefs to people that have not made them.

I don't really remember and I'll have to check the archives but I don't remember the whole blow up with "retard" occurring on my blog. It might have been on Sam's. If it did occur on my blog and I did nothing about it then I am truly sorry for letting it slide.

The only time I remember it being an issue on my blog was when Sarah Palin was once again using here children politically to go after the Obama Administration. Should Emanuel have used that word, of course not. Should anyone ever use a word associated with someone that is mentally challenged, black, asian, gay as an insult to another person? Absolutely not. It's immature and childish.

Mike,

You may have a point here, I can't find the blogs that I thought it was in. The search function here is crappy and I don't want to scroll through hundreds of post to find the instances. So if you don't say you "know" what I think I won't be offended, problem solved. I will retract that statment at this time and hold it in reserve until such time as it can be proved. I apologize.

So now there is only one way you can offend me :)

Mike:

Guillermo said this a few blogs back: "What is most revealing about this is that conbots would to put this "cognitively disabled" (winks at SW) woman in charge of the US. Awesome"

That's classy. I missed it at the time and my respect for him has gone down.

Mike, Mike, Mike:

Right when I go and conceed your point you go and give me more ammuntion:

"I know you think I am an idiot"

Posted my you a few minutes ago, Did I ever call you an idiot?

I'm sorry you are correct, let me rephrase

I believe you believe me to be an idiot. You have never called me an idiot, but with all the constant posts of questioning my intelligence or asking question phrased to make me look like an idiot (asking if I know the difference between didn't and don't) I assumed you thought me as an idiot.

"Guillermo said this a few blogs back: "What is most revealing about this is that conbots would to put this "cognitively disabled" (winks at SW) woman in charge of the US. Awesome"

I don't really see what your problem with this statement is, you seem to be grasping. Your original point was at the word retard. GI used your word to describe someone he believes to be cognitively disabled". Is he now not allowed to use the pc word as well?

My point was calling people words they are not as insults is childish. Many people question the intelligence of a woman who is still convinced that death panels are in the health care reform when they aren't.

Boys,

My issue is not solely with the use of the word, my issue is with society and how it views people with disabilities. This negative view is perpetuated by you on this blog.

If I use a racial slur people know that I am in the wrong, there is a history that has been overcome and society no longer accepts these actions or "jokes" as it did decades ago. People with cognitive disabilities are now fighting that fight and I am trying to help society understand that it is not acceptable. I am really dismayed that for as educated and apparently caring of people you seem to be that you still fall into the camp that says it is ok for society to demean those with cognitive disabilities.

"Is criticizing someone for a lack of intelligence off the table now"

I don't believe so, there is a difference between people who have an average intelligence but believe they are more intelligent than they are. To have a cognitive disability is to have something that is beyond your control. I am not so sensitive as some, I have no problems with you calling someone stupid or even an idiot, although that is getting close to the line in my mind.

"Your problem was the word "retard" right? I used cognitively disabled in deference to your wishes"

I think we both know this for a lie, otherwise why would you so carefully use a term to offend me and even send it off with a wink. As I said, classless. Have I ever made a joke at the expense of someone's race or ethnicity on these boards?

"So let me see if I have this all lined up. Making racist or ethnically defaming statements = acceptable speech because those people can defend themselves"

I don't find it acceptable and so I don't do it. Some people find it acceptable, I disagree. You find it acceptable to continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes at the expense of people with disabilties, I don't. Maybe my holier-than-thou attitude as you put it is fitting.

"Why is it okay to call someone of Spanish decent a "mudblood,"

It is not okay in my view. Why is it ok in your view to call someone the "r-word"?

"when the conbots were making statements "

I disagree, if I see a conservative using the "r-word" I will call them on it as well. Why do you think it isn't ok for conservatives to make racist remarks but that it is ok for you to make disabilitiest (I know it's not a word) remarks?

I haven't complained of your calling any one else other names, does that mean I agree with you then?

What I really would like you to do is think about how hurtful your language use and society's attitude can be.

I have laid out my case that it is not ok to make racist remarks you have never wavered from your stance that it is ok to demean those with disabilities. Do either of you know anyone with a cognitive disability? I'd suggest that next time you are in a high school, ask the special education teacher what they think about the "r-word" ask the student with disabilities what they think, maybe then you will re-consider your stance.

I hope you are no longer confused, if you have any other questions feel free to ask, this is a topic that I will take seriously and try to provide whatever information you need.

Mike:

"Is he now not allowed to use the pc word as well"

It depends on context if he is using it as a joke while still intending it as an insult, I think no, at least not if he wants me to think it acceptable.

Are you now clear why saying someone doesn't have ability has nothing to do with intelligence? I'm wondering you haven't responded to my question about it earlier.

Mike,

"I believe you believe me to be an idiot."

Perfect! Thanks!

"I am really dismayed that for as educated and apparently caring of people you seem to be that you still fall into the camp that says it is ok for society to demean those with cognitive disabilities."

Has anyone actually said this SW or are you projecting again?

The point that you have completely missed (or ignored completely) that GI was trying to make is that the only time you seem to be "offended" by remarks is when someone you perceive as being liberal using the word retard. When someone of your own stripe (political leaning) makes equally racist or immature comments you remain quiet.

To make this simpler, you only get offended when someone that you see as a liberal using a word you don't like, otherwise you don't seem to care.

"Are you now clear why saying someone doesn't have ability has nothing to do with intelligence? I'm wondering you haven't responded to my question about it earlier."

Because I was waiting for you to clarify what you saw as the difference between knowledge and intelligence. To me they are fairly similar so to say that ability has nothing to do with intelligence but it does have to do with knowledge is a little confusing.

Mike:

"Has anyone actually said this SW or are you projecting again?"

By refusing to agree that it is wrong to demean people with disabilities and continuing to perpetuate stereotypes your actions have shown you to be in this camp in my opinion. I would hope that if one Liberal said it wasn't appropriate to demean people with disabilities you would agree and are only refusing to do so when I say it because you feel you must always disagree with me.

"GI was trying to make is that the only time you seem to be "offended" by remarks is when someone you perceive as being liberal using the word retard."

By your continued use of quotes I assume you don't believe I am offended by what I say I am offended by.

As I indicated earlier I am offended when conservatives do the same thing and if you can go back to when Rush your conservative god used the term inappropriately I criticized him as well so you are wrong. If anyone demeans people with disabilities on this site and I see it I have and will comment on it.

However a more telling question is why don't you get offended when people demean those with disabilities the way you do when people use derogatory terms relating to people's race?

"Because I was waiting for you to clarify what you saw as the difference between knowledge and intelligence. To me they are fairly similar so to say that ability has nothing to do with intelligence but it does have to do with knowledge is a little confusing."

Then you are less intelligent than I thought if you cannot understand that some words are synonyms but have different meaning especially when someone takes the time to set the context. I am reminded of your earlier confusion between the words "didn't" and "don't". I can't think of any way to make it any clearer maybe Guillermo can help you understand it, ask him.

You can argue and disagree with me forever and that is fine, i just hope that you do consider some of what I say about people with disabilities and how society views them. Please, speak with the sped teachers and students.

"By refusing to agree that it is wrong to demean people with disabilities and continuing to perpetuate stereotypes your actions have shown you to be in this camp in my opinion."

There you go again (to quote Reagan) SW. You know perfectly well that I have publicly stated, on this particular blog mind you) that it is wrong to demean anyone for any reason. Yet you assigned it to me anyways. Unfortunately, GI, in defending me actually restated your false statement as fact.

This is what you do SW. You attribute words or beliefs to people that have never made them.

My question, however, had nothing to do with what you are attributing to me. You originally stated that:

"I am really dismayed that for as educated and apparently caring of people you seem to be that you still fall into the camp that says it is ok for society to demean those with cognitive disabilities."

I asked where you had seen an example of this on this website where anyone said it was okay. Instead of answering that question you turned it into a completely new argument. Now if you could please focus, "Who on this website has ever said it was okay to demean those who were mentally challenged or cognitively challenged?

"Then you are less intelligent than I thought if you cannot understand that some words are synonyms but have different meaning especially when someone takes the time to set the context. I am reminded of your earlier confusion between the words "didn't" and "don't". I can't think of any way to make it any clearer maybe Guillermo can help you understand it, ask him."

Once again when posed with the question of clarification, instead of clarifying you simply question the intelligence level.

I'll ask you again to please focus. In your mind what is the difference between intelligence and knowledge?

It's a simple question I don't know why you refuse to answer and instead question my intelligence.

Back to this website, yes you have criticized Rush Limbaugh. Who hasn't he's a blowhard. I was specifically speaking of conservative posters on this website that have used words that describe one person to denigrate another person. I have only seen you go after what you believe to liberals on this site. The times you have gone after Sam it has been on his content and not his name-calling.

GIs point which you continue to evade for some reason is that you only seem to "offended" when only liberals talk.

"You have indicted Mike or anyone else who doesn't speak out against those who use the word "retard" or in some other way demean those with cognitive handicaps, as insensitive, as offensive, as harmful to society, etc."

I have spoke out against those who use any word to demean someone. SW is trying to convince readers that I have not. Maybe I misunderstood your intent on using the example. I just want it clarified that despite SW continually saying I have not spoken out, I in fact have.

I did not make the statement as an indictment on you in any way.

I am in the same boat as you GI. SW expects only liberals to hold up to his standard but only when it comes to people who are mentally challenged. All other users are free to demean any way that they want. He has a hypocritical double standard of what "offends" him.

I will say this, though, him being offended by that word only started after Sarah Palin made a big stink about it. Had he had a track record of defending mentally challenged people before that time I might give him some credit. But again I believe he is simply parroting what he has heard. Then again since he professes to not watch any tv, listen to any radio, or read any websites who knows.

Mike,

"GIs point which you continue to evade for some reason is that you only seem to "offended" when only liberals talk."

In the previous paragraph you admit that I was offended and responded when Rush denigrated people with disabilties, then your point is that I am only "offended" when Liberals talk? Is Rush now a Liberal or are you wrong once again?

"I asked where you had seen an example of this on this website where anyone said it was okay"

Think of it this way, when has Rush said it was okay to be racist? I don't think he has yet his actions and words combined make people think he is a racist. Does he have to say he is a racist for him to be one? The examples have been when people have used offensive languange and then continued to "joke" about it. In your defence I don't recall you making jokes, but you also didn't challenge those who were. So in the exact phrasing of your question you are right, in the reality of the situation you are wrong.

". SW expects only liberals to hold up to his standard but only when it comes to people who are mentally challenged"

You are either lying or are more stupid that I ever imagined. In the previous post you indicated that I criticized Rush for the same thing you said here I only criticize Liberals for. Go back and read what you typed. I thought I had made it so clear that even you would understand, I will not stand for anyone denigrating those with disabilities. If I have not commented on it everytime it occurs on these blogs it is because I have missed it. If a conservative has made comments, let me know and I'll go after them about it too.

" He has a hypocritical double standard of what "offends" him."

How is it hypocritical for me to be offended by the way society treats people with disabilities? If you are making that argument, are you hypocritical what "offends" you?

Fellas:

I think I am done after this and you win, you can have the little Liberal utopia on these boards.

"I will say this, though, him being offended by that word only started after Sarah Palin made a big stink about it. Had he had a track record of defending mentally challenged people before that time I might give him some credit. But again I believe he is simply parroting what he has heard. Then again since he professes to not watch any tv, listen to any radio, or read any websites who knows."

Here is as complete of a truth I will give you and you can judge me however you wish. I am the father of two children with developmental disabilities. They are both older than Palin's son. I fight for thier rights educationally and medically and fight with the state and service providers to ensure their needs are met. This is an issue I care deeply about and for you Mike to continue to belittle me about it actually does upset me, congratulations it is easy to "get to" me just trash on people with disabilities. Like you and most people, I hadn't given much thought to disability issues before my first child with a disability was born and I try to educate society as I can. I think society is educated about racism so I don't stress about that so much.

So I'm leaving these boards because of the two of you and your attitude towards people with disabilities. I'm tired of having you mock me for something that is central to my life. It would be similar to if I belittled you for your educational pursuits.

Guillermo, I have said racism is not ok, and I have agreed that it is not ok for people to make racist comments, you have never given a similar courtesy to people with disabilities.

So I am done, but I do seriously and honestly implore you to talk with the sped teachers and students since you both say you are connected with education.

Mike I just want to say, it's been fun, and I hope you know I've just been jerking your chain. I don't really think you are stupid, just that you dont' think things through all the time, and you kept feeding into me messing with you about intelligence. We go way back and I remember you playing baritone at MCC, that's how I know about the seagull poo, you remember that?

Guillermo,

Sorry, but I feel I must respond to your misrepresentation of reality.

I have stood up against racist comments here while you have stood up for demeaning those with disabilities.

YOU joined in mocking people with disabilities, while I clearly said making racist remarks are wrong. So when I'm gone please do me a favor and stand up for people with disabilities as well, or at least give some thought before you belittle them in the future.

I challenge you to show one time when I made a racist remark, I have shown when you disparaged people with disabilties.

What really saddens me is that if you are succesful in your quest to influence education polilcy, I fear you will ignore students with disabilities.

But now you can respond and have he last word as you always like to do.

"Think of it this way, when has Rush said it was okay to be racist? I don't think he has yet his actions and words combined make people think he is a racist. Does he have to say he is a racist for him to be one? The examples have been when people have used offensive languange and then continued to "joke" about it. In your defence I don't recall you making jokes, but you also didn't challenge those who were. So in the exact phrasing of your question you are right, in the reality of the situation you are wrong."

I just want to make sure I have this right. I asked you for proof and you talk about Rush Limbaugh and ignore the question.

"You are either lying or are more stupid that I ever imagined. In the previous post you indicated that I criticized Rush for the same thing you said here I only criticize Liberals for. Go back and read what you typed."

Ah there you go with calling people stupid again (that's really close to denigrating someone you see as having cognitive disabilities, which you said you didn't do) instead of answering the question. Maybe you need to go back and actually read my question. I was talking specifically about this website. You continue to bring up Rush Limbaugh for some reason. Once again, focus, what are the example from this website?

"How is it hypocritical for me to be offended by the way society treats people with disabilities? If you are making that argument, are you hypocritical what "offends" you?"

Ah classic SW. Putting assigning statements to people that never made them. It's hypocritical (and how you haven't gotten this yet I really don't know) that you only go after liberals on this website for one specific word usage, but those with similar views as you have routinely denigrated other users using gay ephitats and you have stayed absolutely silent on it. That's the hypocritical part.

Again I am not talking about Rush Limbaugh so I can make that clear. You went after a blowhard who has said some of the most outlandish things and still held onto a job. But again, I am talking specifically about this website.

"So I'm leaving these boards because of the two of you and your attitude towards people with disabilities. I'm tired of having you mock me for something that is central to my life. It would be similar to if I belittled you for your educational pursuits."

Only you have constantly done this SW so save the martyr speech. You have done this before and have always come back. It's like me or Sam announcing we are never coming back to this website.

"I think I am done after this and you win, you can have the little Liberal utopia on these boards."

Odd, how just a few months ago I took down several blogs because of comments that had been flagged and yet not taken down you made fun of me and claimed that I was "taking my ball and going home" and now I could make a similar comparison, but I'm not going to. I don't denigrate people for standing for what they believe in. You apparently believe that you have been wronged and have chosen not to post on this website again. That is your choice and I respect you for that.

It would have been nice had you extended the same courtesy towards me but you have made perfectly clear that you don't respect anything I say or do and consider me to be "cognitively challenged".

So I will just say adieu and good luck in any further endeavors, and if you ever choose to come back I will welcome you.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what, in the "Pledge" is actually good, and no I am not interested in a smart alleck answer of "It's all good".