quote:
PianOmega47: Still think the Democrats aren't lying scum?
JeffKardde: Apparently I've missed something.
PianOmega47: A) Gephardt trying to convince the American people that the tax cut was a bad idea because the economy hasn't started up again. Here's a hint, Dickie: the tax cut won't even be implemented until October to ANY degree, and won't start having any REAL effect until 2005 or so.
JeffKardde: Well, gee, sounds like you're calling all Democrats lying scum when you really only mean Gephardt.
JeffKardde: Didn't we have a talk with you on the Flameboard about generalizations?
PianOmega47: B) Gephardt trying to convince the people that because the surplus is now ~$180 billion instead of ~$240 billion, the GOP has forced the raiding of the Social Security and Medicare trustfunds. This is patent stupidity on the face of it. Even moreso when you consider the fact that there hasn't been an SS trustfund for decades, and there never was a Medicare fund. PianOmega47: The Democrat leadership is lying scum. The rest don't stand up to him.
JeffKardde: Fine. Why don't you take this to the Flameboard and post it there?
PianOmega47: OF course, the rest, almost to a man, espouse the exact same views.
PianOmega47: Because I wanted your opinion.
JeffKardde: I'm not well versed in the specific economics that Gephardt (and presumeably, most Senators/Congressmen) is/are. Lack of information.
PianOmega47: So you follow them blindly?
PianOmega47: Let me write that down...
JeffKardde: No, I don't make opinions without being better informed.
JeffKardde: You do?
JeffKardde: Let me write that down ...
PianOmega47: Then why do you talk so much in the Flameboard?
JeffKardde: One would wonder the same about you.
PianOmega47: No, no, I AM informed.
PianOmega47: You just said that you weren't.
JeffKardde: No, I said that I don't comment on things when I don't have enough information.
PianOmega47: And you just said that you don't know enough about this situation, even though I've just given you the information.
PianOmega47: Makes me question your reasoning faculites.
PianOmega47: Fine, let me get you the exact text, if that'll make you happy.
JeffKardde: Omega, no offense, but I don't consider you a neccessarily reliable source.
PianOmega47: You should.
JeffKardde: Hardly, considering your super pro-Conservative anti-Liberal swaying.
PianOmega47: Then why do you listen to ANYONE?
PianOmega47: You're suggesting I'd lie?
JeffKardde: I mean, no offense, but no reputable source would ever start something off with "lying Democrat scum"
JeffKardde: Not at all. Omit information, however, is soemthing else.
PianOmega47: Oh, so I disagree with you, therefore I can't be believed. OK, then.
JeffKardde: No. I prefer to get my information from different sources before coming to a judgement on something.
PianOmega47: And if it's something that the liberal media refuses to report?
JeffKardde: Oh, so now it's the LIBERAL media? I thought it was the liberal biased media?
PianOmega47: They're liberal.
JeffKardde: Of course they are. Everyone's out to get you.
PianOmega47: I didn't say that. I said they were liberal.
JeffKardde: Rush Limbaugh? O'Reilly?
JeffKardde: I'll make sure to quote you on that.
PianOmega47: Hardly mainstream media.
JeffKardde: Ah, I see, so now it's the liberal mainstream media!
PianOmega47: What was it, 92% of Washington reporters who voted for Clinton?
PianOmega47: YES!
JeffKardde: OMG! They voted for Clinton? GASP! Because, reporters shouldn't be allowed to vote at all!
PianOmega47: Jeff, you're an idiot.
JeffKardde: That's obviously what you're suggesting, here. One wonders where you get those numbers, tho.
PianOmega47: I said nothing like that. You can not reasonably infer that from what I said. Therefore, you are either trying to read things into my statements that aren't there, or you have no reasoning faculties.
PianOmega47: Which option would you prefer I believe?
JeffKardde: You can believe whatever you'd like.
PianOmega47: Anyway, does this not intrigue you in the slightest that your fearless leader might be lying to you, and attempting to deceive people in order to gain support? Does it not merit investigation to you?
PianOmega47: OK, then, you're an idiot.
PianOmega47: It fits the most evidence.
JeffKardde: My fearless leader (albeit, not the guy I like) is on VACATION in TEXAS.
JeffKardde: Unless I'm not supposed to accept Bush as leader of the country?
PianOmega47: We're talking about internal politics, not international politics. You either know that, and are attempting to confuse the issue, or you are an idiot.
PianOmega47: Why is vacation relevant? He can still do interviews, and I never said it was TODAY.
JeffKardde: You say that a lot. It's like you can't have a conseversation with people without calling them "idiots." And, if it's off-topic, why'd you bring it up again? It takes two people to go off topic, chum.
PianOmega47: Bush? YOU brought up Bush.
JeffKardde: I know I did. But you brought his vacation up again. And it takes two to go off topic. And, er, you just brought him up again ...
PianOmega47: Hey, I'm pointing out alternatives. If you do such a thing, you must have a reason. You either know this is a stupid thing to do, or you are incapable of recognizing it. Pick one.
JeffKardde: For which? Going off topic? Or calling people idiots? That's what you call an alternative? "Hey, idiot!"
PianOmega47: You do stupid things. You either know they're stupid, and are attempting to confuse people, or you don't know they're stupid, and are thus an idiot. Simple logic.
PianOmega47: Drop the vacations. You were, again, trying to confuse the issue.
JeffKardde: You know, it'd be nice if you could re-read one of your "ad-hominems aren't good debating points!" for once. As for Gephardt, IF he's lying. Like I've said COUNTLESS FUCKING TIMES, I'm not going to take your word alone for it. You can't accept that, tough luck ...
JeffKardde: And you're bringing up the vacation again! If it's off-topic, why do you keep mentioning it?
PianOmega47: I'm not making a debating point. I'm making a statement. Simple as that. I'm trying to get you to recognize the stupidity of your actions and statements. I'd like a worthy, coherant opponent.
PianOmega47: Then FIND OUT! Look it up! Or is my word that worthless?
JeffKardde: Ah. I see. "You're an idiot," is suddenly a valid debating point? How can I look it up when I've got you calling me an idiot every two seconds?
PianOmega47: Read the damned message, Jeff.
JeffKardde: Jesus H. Fucking Christ, such language.
PianOmega47: I'm looking it up and I'm the one doing the calling. It shouldn't be too hard.
JeffKardde: Excellent. Post it on the Flameboard for "great discussion."
PianOmega47: No, for great discussion, I'd have to have a rational, intellectually honest Democrat. They seem to be in short supply.
JeffKardde: so do non-paranoid conservative freaks.
PianOmega47: Oh, so all conservatives are freaks, whether they're paranoid or not?
JeffKardde: Hardly. You just happen to be both.
PianOmega47: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I knew what I just said wasn't true, but it can actually be reasonably infered from what YOU said. You go way further than that. You read what you want, whether it's there or not.
PianOmega47: Tell me something: what have the Democrats proposed to get the economy moving?
JeffKardde: Ah, but see, it can be reasonable infered that you're paranoid! As for the "freak", I consider anyone who actually believes in a higher form of life to be a freak (sorry, folks).
PianOmega47: That has nothing to do with what I just said. I was talking about how you infer things from other peoples' posts that aren't there, by any stretch of the imagination.
JeffKardde: I just love your mudraking Omega. Bush and Gore talked about being bi-partisan, you just smear the other party. How kind. How noble.
PianOmega47: I respond to attacks, and use logic to convince you that the party you so adamantly support is on the wrong side.
PianOmega47: Now answer the question.
JeffKardde: The Democratic party might not represent the ideology that well, but that just means theres a problem with the party: not with the ideology.
PianOmega47: And what is that ideology?
JeffKardde: You don't know what liberal ideology is?
PianOmega47: Define it, in your mind.
JeffKardde: You're changing the subject.
PianOmega47: What's the subject? 
JeffKardde: I get yelled at for changing the subject, but, noooo, Omega can change the subject whenever he wants to ... oh, we don't have a subject?
PianOmega47: No, I go with a logical progression from topic to topic. You post total non sequitors. There's a difference.
PianOmega47: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20010820/3556829s.htm
''The president ought to come in with a new budget right now, this fall, to
avoid this problem of going into the Social Security trust fund,'' House
Democratic leader Richard Gephardt said Sunday.
PianOmega47: "Democrats plan to greet Bush with senior-citizen protests today in
Milwaukee and tomorrow in Independence, Mo. The charge: The tax cut has
also forced the government to dip into Medicare."
Prime example of the Democrats lying to people to scare them.
JeffKardde: "We need a missile shield or we'll be nuked!" - prime example of Republicans lying to people to scare them.
PianOmega47: We never said that, now did we?
PianOmega47: "'We see this as a defining moment of the Bush presidency,'' Democratic
National Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said. ''It's time to go on
the offensive.''
Yeah, REAL bi-partisan.
JeffKardde: Where exactly do you have information showing there is no SS trust?
PianOmega47: You really don't pay attention to things, do you?
PianOmega47: What do you think Bush was proposing for Social Security, anyway?
JeffKardde: I'm asking you. Show me, somewhere, were it says there is no S.S. trustfund. You CAN do that, can't you?
PianOmega47: He's proposing using part of the surplus to recreate the trust fund, after it was plundered. As things stand, your SS taxes go straight into the general fund, and your grandparents' payments come out of it.
PianOmega47: Give me a few minutes. Do you have NO concept of curiosity?
PianOmega47: Why do you so rabidly support a party that you know lies to people?
JeffKardde: You're a funny guy to listen to. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO TRUSTFUND. Its not a lot to ask. Can't you even do that?
PianOmega47: As I said, give me a few minutes. Do a little research yourself, while you're at it.
JeffKardde: I'm browsing through some Counter-strike servers.
PianOmega47: Typical. Can't be bothered to find out the truth. Why do you support someone you know nothing about, then?
JeffKardde: Jesus Fucking Christ, Omega. First of all, you IMed me and launched into a political debate without even having the common courtesy of asking if I wanted to chat. Second, you never even crossed your tiny little brain that I might've been busy doing something else? And third of all, I've told you TIME and TIME again, if you've got evidence, show it to me. You can't show me any evidence, because you don't have any. Now, if you're going to keep up this attitude, either fuck off, or go find someone else.
PianOmega47: link
There's some Rush at the beginning, but after that there's a direct clip from the interview.
PianOmega47: http://www.federalbudget.com/
PianOmega47: "Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget. It is separate and has its own source of income and its
own separate trust fund. But Congress spent the money in the Social Security Trust Fund on other things,
promising to pay it back. That promise is now part of the National Debt. Beware of the term "Social
Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security has a Trust Fund, and since Social Security is a
Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed. "
PianOmega47: ""The Social Security Trust Fund is simply a meaningless record of taxes that have been collected for future needs, spent for
current desires, and then recorded and counted as an asset, .... If we try to create assets for ourself at our local bank by simply
recording numbers in our checkbook, I am sure they would not honor such action as a real asset. I suspect that the IRS would
consider such action in creating a deduction on a tax return to be fraudulent as well."
JeffKardde: Now, see, that's better then calling people "idiots"
PianOmega47: No, I only call people idiots when they act like them.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
