“The length is what's wrong. I don't think I've ever seen you make a point cogently and quickly; like any lawyer the instant your viewpoint is challenged you attempt to bury the challenger in a torrent of propaganda.”

Is that what you call substantive factual reference? Answer the facts and don’t initiate rhetoric. Go back and challenge some of the assertions I’ve made about this thread and the Great Depression or other relevant points.

“You are totally incorrect in your views of conservatism. You are so incredibly wrong that I don't see the point in trying to explain to you WHY you are wrong; you will not believe me. What you call "inflexibility" and "intolerance" are merely the typical liberal Democrat party-line definitions of conservatism. I could probably write a post long enough to have come from you on the subject of why conservatism is NOT inflexible and intolerant, but again, you would dismiss it...so why should I bother?”

You have demonstrated you cannot retort with anything but Jesus-loving garbage, so yea, why try? I would love to see something relevant to the facts so I could weigh and agree/reject those assertions/contentions.

“You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections.”

OK, this is what I want, now provide a theory and some internet or textual (easily accessible) reference.

“The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy.”

Ok, so research and post Dow Jones numbers in January 1993 and January 2001. If you wish to show a trend, then show other dates and numbers that support that. This is the process in which theories are empirically tested.

“EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT”

Ok, a little more than that.

“Greenspan lowered interest rates throughout all the years of the Clinton presidency.”

Remember, the real estate rate was about 9%, so although that’s true, the rate could only go down, so that’s not indicative as to Clinton’s job performance.

“He did that to keep the economy from stagnating. Lower interest rates=cheap money=more money available for capital investment. Higher interest rates=more expensive money=less money available for capital investments. It is no accident that the economy (AFTER the Bush tax cuts by the way) is now booming, and that Greenspan is now contemplating hiking the Fed rate (if he hasn't done so already).”

What part of the economy is booming? If we have a good week, that doesn’t mean the whole thing is turned around. Just today, I saw that the job growth for June was sluggish.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&e=3&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

“As I said, your posts are 90% wrong, and TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You posted THREE PAGES of JUNK for crying out loud.”

Ok, you were doing well until this Ad Hominem; back on track. You have failed to objectively reject anything, but take your previous strategy and expound and you may.

“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20031205.shtml Charles Krauthammer on "Bush Derangement Syndrome"--better read it; you show every sign of having it.”

Is this about me, or about the issue and the economy? See, Ed, an Ad Hominem is an argument strategy where you impeach the credibility of the opposing author instead of the actual issue. This is done when the person replying to the other person has no argument. BTW, this site didn’t come up, just the general townhall. Not that it matters, as it’s not substantive.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/Hystericallyshriekingleft.shtml

...and your days of bloviation (however fruitful) are numbered.

Another Ad Hominem. Ed, there are all kinds of angle you can argue this issue from, why not attack one of those instead of fruitlessly throwing hate at me? Again, nothing comes up here but a main page.

Bloviation? Is that a Bush word?

To question whether Clinton is a womanizer is about as moot as wondering whether OJ is a murderer. As for a president that invoked policies that helped poor/middle class, well, of course he did.

For anyone, but especially the conservs to focus on his being a womanizer is as laughable as the same comparing military records between Bush jr and Kerry.

Excuse me, but I happen to be enjoying this thread.

Please follow the step by step instructions and utilize this handy idea in the future.

1) Locate and open Wordpad

2) Type the following words across the top center of your page.

TRASH

3) Click on File then Print.

4) Place the printed document in front of your monitor with "TRASH" facing you and affix with tape or any suitable adheasive.

Disclaimer:
This will not work on wives, kids, dogs or bosses.
However, If the need to dump the aforementioned in the "trash" does arise, it would be advisable to affix the aforementioned document to your forehead so that it reads HSART and sit silently for a while.

I know what "ad hominem" means.

"Bloviate":

My original post in this thread was primarily aimed at the incredible torrent of words you always emit, and you use a total of ONE quote tag per message, making your BLOVIATION both dense and time-consuming to read. Ironically H.L. Menken's quote regarding Harding also applies to YOU, especially with cracks such as:

In any event, your constant calls for proof are hypocritical. You posted a long message in this thread accusing President Bush of all sorts of perfidy WITHOUT ONE SCRAP OF PROOF WHATSOEVER. When you post proof that those accusations are true, in a properly quoted and readable post, THEN I will answer the points you made in your subsequent BLOVIATIONS.

I posted plenty of substantive factual evidence that you are far, far too long-winded. This last post of yours is two pages' worth of text, although your word count is vastly improving at 694 words.

What part of the economy is booming? EVERY PART. The Missouri-Pacific line that runs through my town has upwards of 5, 6, 7 trains per day, a level of activity I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan was in office. The newspapers are full of want ads crying for truck drivers. The transportation industry is going great guns, and why? BECAUSE MONEY IS BEING SPENT.

In one sentence you sneeringly admonish me with "If we have a good week, that doesn't mean the whole thing is turned around." In the next sentence, you tell me that "Just today, I saw that the job growth for June was sluggish." How was the job growth for the prior five months? If we have a month which experiences a lower job growth rate than prior months where the job growth rate was considered high, that is not an indication that the economy universally sucks!

To me, phrases like "Jesus-loving garbage" is "throwing hate".

* * *

I wonder what your real personality is like. I wonder if you come across as a sneering smart-ass in a face-to-face conversation? Because that's how you come across in these threads--a know-it-all who looks down his nose at others as being less intelligent than you. You never answer anyone else's points; you merely make fun of them. You redirect the debate into other areas, such as proper methods of quotation. You make assertions and provide no evidence to support them; then when others say anything negative about your posts, you demand an extensive bibliography.

The simple fact is, none of my posts have been aimed at proving you wrong. I know that even if I was able to provide videotaped evidence of some kind of Clinton perfidy you'd find a way to excuse it. Even if I could provide a videotape showing that Bush didn't do one of the things on your silly little list of "crimes", you would reject it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong at all.

No. What I was trying to do was to get YOU to show everyone what a pompous, bloviating blowhard you are--and you've managed to do that very, very well.

Ed

I could be WAY off on my assesment but the way I read Ed's post I could see a very clear indication that he was agreeing with Mr. Lobe. However, Mr. Lobes point was mute because we all know where Mr. Clintons moral values lie. I agree with Ed that Mr. Lobes point was mute in light of Mr Clintons track record that is all too obvious.

Please expound on Mr. Lobes post if you feel otherwise. I would like to explore the irrelavancy of Eds post with that of yours or would the point of it be mute?
Either way does not bother me but I do see a pattern developing.

With you the tires are squeeling under the force of thousands of horsepower but nothing is moving.. All I see is alot of smoke coming from you.

However, Ed has displayed acquiescence by the truckload.

I duno, maybe I'm just loosing it or maybe Commrad Ed missed my post with the light bulb. :shruggs:

Whipsawing? Facsinating! Now answer the question. How is a surplus a positive thing when all it means is that the government got it SO wrong that it overtaxed everybody

Ahh, the Hillary argument! I keep forgetting since my own father is a Venture capitalist that rich people don't take their money and build businesses with it, hence creating jobs, and lower cost products which allows the common consumer to own things like Cars, Computers, and TVs which USED to be affordable to only the privilaged few. It is a FAR better idea to let RICH government people, who never CREATED wealth in their lives but inherited it like Kennedy, Kerry, etc., decide how the money gets distibuted. Yeah, that is teh ticket. And when the incentive is gone for those creative geniouses among us to give up trying to create and invent THEN we'll be really doing well as a society won't we? Yeah, those rich people are pretty dumb just squirelling away their wealth in the Cayman Islands, instead of re-investing it, until America Collapses so they can come in and take over...Oh wait, if America collapses then their millions would be as worthless as a Saddam Dinar. Hmmm, I guess I'd better re-think that whole 'Rich people are the enemy' thing, shouldn't I?!?

OK, I'm going to do you a HUGE favor and assume you are joking because NOBODY can be that dumb.

Ha Ha Ha, good one!

uhh, read them...maybe. Think that would work?
note the names; Chinese authors.

Once again you don't get it. When a despot repeats a lie over and over again...it DOES NOT become the truth. The Soviet Union fell because no matter how much they blamed the west, the people are SMARTER than the liberal left gave them credit for. The same went for China, Iraq, and soon to be North Korea.

Funny, I have NEVER seen video tape of people risking their lives under a hail of bullets to get INTO East Berlin. Hmmm, guess that whole sharing of the wealth idea didn't work-out so well after all.

Bloviate sounds more like slang than anything. In my American heritage dictionary 3rd edition) comprised of 2134 pages it can’t be found. It isn’t considered a valid word in WORD spellcheck either. Furthermore, after a little research, I found it be somewhat of a slang word.

“This word is almost entirely restricted to the United States; it doesn’t appear in any of my British English dictionaries, not even the big Oxford English Dictionary or the very recent New Oxford Dictionary of English. Yet it has a long history.”

And after I find it originated with a Repugnican President, it makes sense.

“It’s most closely associated with U S President Warren Gamaliel Harding, who used it a lot and who was by all accounts the classic example of somebody who orates verbosely and windily.”

Kind of ironic how the perpetuator of a word is also the best example of that word; history repeats itself, edhering.

http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-blo1.htm

After more research, I found the word does appear in the fourth edition of the American Heritage dictionary.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/B0338950.html

INTRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: blo·vi·at·ed, blo·vi·at·ing, blo·vi·atesSlang To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: “the rural Babbitt who bloviates about ‘progress’ and ‘growth’” (George Rebeck, Utne Reader November/December 1991).

As I thought, it is slang. Hillbilly Republican slang; no wonder I had no knowledge of it.

“My original post in this thread was primarily aimed at the incredible torrent of words you always emit, and you use a total of ONE quote tag per message, making your BLOVIATION both dense and time-consuming to read. Ironically H.L. Menken's quote regarding Harding also applies to YOU, especially with cracks such as:”

Length: look at your post……. One quote tag per post: look at your misquoting of other people – and – please avoid them if you don’t like it.

“You have demonstrated you cannot retort with anything but Jesus-loving garbage, so yea, why try?”

“In any event, your constant calls for proof are hypocritical.”

My genius edhering, I don’t call for proof, I call for supporting evidence as opposed to opinion. I already know your opinion: Jebus is great and Repugnicans are wonderful. Proof is reserved for self-righteous conservatives that believe things are always black and white, whereas supporting evidence is utilized for people that debate the merits of an issue. Please find where I’ve solely asked for proof and not supporting evidence.

“You posted a long message in this thread accusing President Bush of all sorts of perfidy WITHOUT ONE SCRAP OF PROOF WHATSOEVER.”

I previously wrote the titles, and now expounded on them:

1.The Overtime Bill
- http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/ns01222004.cfm?RenderForPrint=1
- The omnibus appropriations bill is a factual reference that includes the Overtime Bill. The Overtime Bill is designed to unilaterally allow employers to relegate employees to salary status, require unlimited working hours without having to pay overtime wages.
2.A worthless/fruitless war that will net over 1k American deaths before the elction
- This is opinion. Some people still have the opinion that Viet Nam was a positive action too, so that relegates this issue to opinion. As for the 1k deaths, I think that is believable, although speculation. At approximately 850 deaths, 1k is believable.
3. Record job losses
- To support this broad allegation, I will establish that Bush’s trade policies have been primarily responsible for the losses of millions of jobs.
- Steel tariffs http://global-trade-law.com/Article.Bush%20Trade%20Policy%20(WSJ%20Editorial%205.10.02).htm
- “When the Bush administration imposed steep tariffs on imported steel, it became clear that this is no longer true. In sheer economic terms, the steel tariff is not that big a deal. But it demonstrates an unprecedented contempt for international rules.”
- “The immediate threat is that other nations will strike back; the European Union has threatened retaliatory tariffs, and earlier this week Japan, Brazil, South Korea and China said they would follow suit. (Mr. Bush really has unified the world, at least on this issue.) But as a wise trade expert once told me, the big danger when the U.S. flouts the rules isn't retaliation, it's emulation: if we don't honor trade agreements, who will?”
- http://global-trade-law.com/Article.Farm%20Bill%20(NYT%206.15.02).htm
- “Javier Solana, Europe's foreign policy chief, declared in Madrid this week that the new American agriculture policy has created the "most profound" division between Europe and the United States, worse than disputes over steel tariffs, the Kyoto environmental treaty or the international criminal court.”
- I could go on, but you’ve already complained about length.
4.Record deficits
- http://ko.offroadpakistan.com/imgs/deficit_estimate_july03_gra.jpg
- And these don’t even include the war costs
5.Record stock market drops (although it appears they may recover
enough for him to lose that title before the election)
- http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=5y
- Are you going to blame 9/11? The market hit it’s largest low 1 year after 9/11. Has any president left the market lower than when he entered office? Maybe Hoover. It seems Hoover has become more and more of an issue lately now that Bush is meeting/exceeding his great measures.
6. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking
water.
- “Bush withdraws new arsenic-in-drinking-water standard
March 20, 2001: The Bush administration announced it would withdraw a new standard for arsenic in drinking water, choosing the interests of the mining industry and some small water suppliers over protecting the health of millions of Americans. EPA's final arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb) would have lowered allowable levels of arsenic in tap water from the current standard of 50 ppb, an outdated standard established in 1942. The 10 ppb standard was the result of more than a decade of public hearings, scientific reviews, and planning with health experts and industry representatives. A few years ago, the World Health Organization and the European Union implemented a 10 ppb standard. It would cost 90 percent of Americans living in areas with high levels of arsenic less than $3 per month to clean up the contaminant in their water supplies.”
- http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drinking.asp
7.Killed the Ergonomics Bill
- http://www.cfo.com:8080/article/1,5309,2212,00.html
- The Senate passed the killing of it and the Bushy gladly signed it instead of vetoing it.
8. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.

“When you post proof that those accusations are true, in a properly quoted and readable post, THEN I will answer the points you made in your subsequent BLOVIATIONS.”

I’m not going to format it the way you want instead I’ll use common English. If you want to continue to be a coward and avoid because of formatting, I won’t be surprised.

“I posted plenty of substantive factual evidence that you are far, far too long-winded.”

This furthers your cowardly protocol of avoiding issues and focusing on things like length, comprehensive nature versus brevity, and personal attacks and does nothing to address the issues that the thread are about or the supporting evidence I introduce to support my position.

“This last post of yours is two pages' worth of text, although your word count is vastly improving at 694 words.”

When it comes to tracking the word count, you shine. Unfortunatley when it comes to addressing the issues I’ve provided and my supporting data, you suck.

“What part of the economy is booming? EVERY PART. The Missouri-Pacific line that runs through my town has upwards of 5, 6, 7 trains per day, a level of activity I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan was in office.”

Well, let’s look at your part of the world as an indicator for the global economy. Much broader data is important than, ‘the train be runnin all da time.’

“The newspapers are full of want ads crying for truck drivers. The transportation industry is going great guns, and why? BECAUSE MONEY IS BEING SPENT.”

Whether true or not, this kind of data isn’t relevant to the US economy.

“In one sentence you sneeringly admonish me with "If we have a good week, that doesn't mean the whole thing is turned around." In the next sentence, you tell me that "Just today, I saw that the job growth for June was sluggish." How was the job growth for the prior five months? If we have a month which experiences a lower job growth rate than prior months where the job growth rate was considered high, that is not an indication that the economy universally sucks!”

Let’s look at the big picture. Job growth has been negative for most of the Bush presidency. As of late, it has turned around a little, but has now begun to sink again. I don’t think we can call the recent spurt of positive change as a whole new turn-around, just as the last month being poor for growth an absolute indicator that all is sunk. I do, however, think that the economy has sucked for virtually the entire Bush presidency, and I do attribute that to Bush’s trade policies as well as his tax cuts/breaks for the rich.

“To me, phrases like "Jesus-loving garbage" is "throwing hate".”

Where’s the love?

“I wonder what your real personality is like. I wonder if you come across as a sneering smart-ass in a face-to-face conversation? Because that's how you come across in these threads--a know-it-all who looks down his nose at others as being less intelligent than you. You never answer anyone else's points; you merely make fun of them.”

I wonder if you can keep the topic off of me and back onto the course for which it was established? This is an Ad Hominem. Who cares about me, focus on the topic ADD man.

“You redirect the debate into other areas, such as proper methods of quotation.”

PARDON ME? I don’t have a problem with quote boxes, you and a couple others seem to have an issue with me not using one and you initiate the quote box issue. Unless you’re talking about a person intentionally misquoting the statements of another, for which I do object.

“You make assertions and provide no evidence to support them; then when others say anything negative about your posts, you demand an extensive bibliography.”

Where do I require a so-called, “bibliography?” I have provided web site info in this very thread; WTF are you talking about. I tried to click on your without success.

“The simple fact is, none of my posts have been aimed at proving you wrong. I know that even if I was able to provide videotaped evidence of some kind of Clinton perfidy you'd find a way to excuse it.”

Right, you don’t prove me wrong; you focus on Ad Hominem to attempt to personally discredit me – that we agree on. As for Clinton, I didn’t vote for him either time. I do retrospectively appreciate much of what he stood for and accomplished to help poor Americans. So to slander Clinton by you is fine with me, but you still haven’t supported Bush by doing that…… misdirection.

“Even if I could provide a videotape showing that Bush didn't do one of the things on your silly little list of "crimes", you would reject it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong at all.”

Don’t prove me wrong, attempt to disprove the elements of my argument wrong. A videotape is not necessary, as the evidence lies within the written documents.

“No. What I was trying to do was to get YOU to show everyone what a pompous, bloviating blowhard you are--and you've managed to do that very, very well.”

Exactly, you were following your normal course of Ad Hominem.

“PS Your reply to Frontal Lobe is typical of you. He made a comment about Clinton's credibility; you replied with a comment about whether Clinton was a womanizer or not. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point Frontal Lobe made. At least it was SHORT for once.”

Exactly, but FL, as you, remarked about Clinton in Ad Hominem form; Clinton’s a womanizer, therefore he can’t make a good president. That’s an Ad Hominem. Can you find flaws in Clinton’s policy? I can find a couple, but many, many more with our current president.

Actually try to impeach my statements/assertions relating to the topic.