ADVERTISEMENT

Bernie Sanders

Obviously, I was cranky when I woke up today. Seeing my family (celebrating my grandma's 85th birthday) has put me in a better mood. RBabbitt, I'm not going to go searching for a reason to ban you.

However, everyone here on this board should take Rock's comments to heart. Our first few weeks moderating, we have been very lenient. I can think off the top of my head four posters (2 from each side of the aisle) that have pushed the envelope enough that I might have warned/banned them if I were being a hardass.

It was our genuine hope that simply having moderators would convince people to behave better. It now appears that hope was in vain. Don't be surprised if we start deleting more posts this week, or even start handing out more official warnings.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
I'm not complaining about unequal incomes
Click to expand...

Sure you are

Unequal incomes is precisely the "problem" you want me to admit, or see, or something. This whole debate is about sex differences in income and usually expressed as "women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes". The debate is usually finished off with some flavor of the war on women and a cry for equal pay. You and millions of others mindlessly slip from the income metric to the pay metric.

You need to think about this. I'm only using you as a surrogate for the this false comparison. You have lots of company.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
Sure you are

Unequal incomes is precisely the "problem" you want me to admit, or see, or something. This whole debate is about sex differences in income and usually expressed as "women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes". The debate is usually finished off with some flavor of the war on women and a cry for equal pay. You and millions of others mindlessly slip from the income metric to the pay metric.

You need to think about this. I'm only using you as a surrogate for the this false comparison. You have lots of company.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. I simply corrected a factual error on your part. That's it.

For the rest of you, if you want to know what a "straw man" argument is, it's this. CO.H is choosing to attack something I didn't actually say, presumably because he has no answer to what I did say.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
No, I'm not. I simply corrected a factual error on your part. That's it.

For the rest of you, if you want to know what a "straw man" argument is, it's this. CO.H is choosing to attack something I didn't actually say, presumably because he has no answer to what I did say.
Click to expand...

Nope

You are the one who was dismissive of my statement that on an apples to apples comparison men and women have equal pay because that is what federal law has required for 50 years now. In support of your comment you linked an article headlined:

"Women Still Earn a Lot Less Than Men"

All this says that you didn't, or wouldn't, understand the difference between unequal income and unequal pay.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Obviously, I was cranky when I woke up today. Seeing my family (celebrating my grandma's 85th birthday) has put me in a better mood. RBabbitt, I'm not going to go searching for a reason to ban you.

However, everyone here on this board should take Rock's comments to heart. Our first few weeks moderating, we have been very lenient. I can think off the top of my head four posters (2 from each side of the aisle) that have pushed the envelope enough that I might have warned/banned them if I were being a hardass.

It was our genuine hope that simply having moderators would convince people to behave better. It now appears that hope was in vain. Don't be surprised if we start deleting more posts this week, or even start handing out more official warnings.
Click to expand...

The mere fact you think Rockfish can advise others about board civility tells us all we need to know

If you agree with the content of a post, it can contain insult after personal attack after moving goal post after straw man etc.

If you disagree with the content, the rules are different.

If you want civility - say so and act so

If you want barbaric intellectualism - say that and do that

But saying you want civility and allowing the word stupid is, well, st..., not gonna work.

As it was in the beginning
Is now
And ever shall be
Insults without end
Ah-men
Ahhhhhhh -men.
 
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor said:
The mere fact you think Rockfish can advise others about board civility tells us all we need to know

If you agree with the content of a post, it can contain insult after personal attack after moving goal post after straw man etc.

If you disagree with the content, the rules are different.

If you want civility - say so and act so

If you want barbaric intellectualism - say that and do that

But saying you want civility and allowing the word stupid is, well, st..., not gonna work.

As it was in the beginning
Is now
And ever shall be
Insults without end
Ah-men
Ahhhhhhh -men.
Click to expand...
You're not paying attention. We've let things slide on both sides of the aisle, and we recognize that. We've also deleted things from both sides of the aisle. Each of us individually. It's not that I delete conservative posts and NPT and Cajun delete liberal posts. Believe it or not, we actually do have the ability to be objective.

We do want people to be more civil. Personally, I'm more concerned with getting people to troll less. I think incivility is mostly an effect, and not a root cause. The root cause is trolling.
 
By the way, since @RBabbitt and @MyTeamIsOnTheFloor both seem to think I called CO.H stupid, let me clear that up. CO.H clearly understood what I was saying, based on his immediate response, but apparently it was unclear to others. What I referred to as "stupid" was his description of an ostensibly liberal argument - the idea that a desire for equal pay would mean that PGA and LPGA players should be paid the same. That idea is stupid, and that's what I was calling stupid. As I said, CO.H understood, evidenced by his response ("I agree, it is stupid"). Our disagreement wasn't on the stupidity of the argument, but on the reasonableness of bringing it up as though it was a real argument that genuine humans might actually make. It was a fringe lunatic type comment, that CO.H was presenting as a mainstream liberal opinion. But we both recognized it as a stupid argument. The fact that it was so brazenly stupid, in fact, is probably the reason CO.H mentioned it in the first place.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
By the way, since @RBabbitt and @MyTeamIsOnTheFloor both seem to think I called CO.H stupid, let me clear that up. CO.H clearly understood what I was saying, based on his immediate response, but apparently it was unclear to others. What I referred to as "stupid" was his description of an ostensibly liberal argument - the idea that a desire for equal pay would mean that PGA and LPGA players should be paid the same. That idea is stupid, and that's what I was calling stupid. As I said, CO.H understood, evidenced by his response ("I agree, it is stupid"). Our disagreement wasn't on the stupidity of the argument, but on the reasonableness of bringing it up as though it was a real argument that genuine humans might actually make. It was a fringe lunatic type comment, that CO.H was presenting as a mainstream liberal opinion. But we both recognized it as a stupid argument. The fact that it was so brazenly stupid, in fact, is probably the reason CO.H mentioned it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Trying to draw a line between "you are stupid" and "what you said is stupid" is .... what the problem has been on this board for years.

Both are insults.
Neither are justified.
Neither are civil.

Then again, I post here less and less - and post substance nearly never, 'cause I don't want to put with the fights anymore, so maybe my view is and should be irrelevant - kinda like going into another man's house and bitching about the carpet
 
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor said:
Trying to draw a line between "you are stupid" and "what you said is stupid" is .... what the problem has been on this board for years.

Both are insults.
Neither are justified.
Neither are civil.

Then again, I post here less and less - and post substance nearly never, 'cause I don't want to put with the fights anymore, so maybe my view is and should be irrelevant - kinda like going into another man's house and bitching about the carpet
Click to expand...
And amazingly you still don't get it. In this case, "What you said is stupid" actually is "If one of my fellow liberals actually made that argument, I'd call it out as being incredibly stupid."

As I said, CO.H understood easily what I was saying, since he agreed with me that it was stupid. But you guys just see a liberal using the word "stupid," and you can't be bothered to actually read the post. You just assume it was an insult.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
And amazingly you still don't get it. In this case, "What you said is stupid" actually is "If one of my fellow liberals actually made that argument, I'd call it out as being incredibly stupid."

As I said, CO.H understood easily what I was saying, since he agreed with me that it was stupid. But you guys just see a liberal using the word "stupid," and you can't be bothered to actually read the post. You just assume it was an insult.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking more generally.
Not everything is about you.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
And amazingly you still don't get it. In this case, "What you said is stupid" actually is "If one of my fellow liberals actually made that argument, I'd call it out as being incredibly stupid."

As I said, CO.H understood easily what I was saying, since he agreed with me that it was stupid. But you guys just see a liberal using the word "stupid," and you can't be bothered to actually read the post. You just assume it was an insult.
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity

I have no doubt, and neither does anyone else, that you intended to direct your offensive and uncivil remarks at yours truly. I used the professional golf comparison as a illustration about why income statistics are as they are. My "agreement" served the purpose of pointing out you were talking about your argument, not mine and your were again conflating equal income with equal pay.
 
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor said:
Trying to draw a line between "you are stupid" and "what you said is stupid" is .... what the problem has been on this board for years.

Both are insults.
Neither are justified.
Neither are civil.

Then again, I post here less and less - and post substance nearly never, 'cause I don't want to put with the fights anymore, so maybe my view is and should be irrelevant - kinda like going into another man's house and bitching about the carpet
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference in saying someone is stupid and something they said or did is stupid. That's a distinguishing factor that every parent and educator makes when talking to a child, using a variety of words. That was a stupid thing you did, but it does NOT mean you are stupid.
 
IU-Curmudgeon said:
You haven't been reading about the issues CNN has had regarding their claims on the debate have you. Or you are choosing to ignore them, which is it?

How embarrasskin. (channeling Popeye)
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are talking about...but whatever it is, are you somehow claiming they falsified this real poll?
 
So right on top of things as usual.

They had a storm of protest over their conclusions, look it up. Online in general and on their FB page, they were deleting posts all over the place since their own focus group and polls had Sander's the winner.

They removed their online poll that showed Sanders won the night of the debate.

The owners of CNN are in the Top 10 contributors for Hillary...

> Edit

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/10/15/cnn-deletes-pro-bernie-sanders-poll-and-user-comments/

So yeah, I am claiming exactly that.
 
Last edited:
IU-Curmudgeon said:
So right on top of things as usual.

They had a storm of protest over their conclusions, look it up. Online in general and on their FB page, they were deleting posts all over the place since their own focus group and polls had Sander's the winner.

They removed their online poll that showed Sanders won the night of the debate.

The owners of CNN are in the Top 10 contributors for Hillary...

> Edit

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/10/15/cnn-deletes-pro-bernie-sanders-poll-and-user-comments/

So yeah, I am claiming exactly that.
Click to expand...


I don't read conspiracy theory sites, nor do l bother to look at completely meaningless online polls that have zero validity.

If you enjoy them, then have fun..but don't think you can post them here as some sort of legitimate argument, without getting called out.

I provided an actual scientific poll, completed by a respected market research firm (ORC) that's been around for 80 years. You provided? People bitching about Facebook trolls
 
Last edited:
zeke4ahs said:
There is a huge difference in saying someone is stupid and something they said or did is stupid. That's a distinguishing factor that every parent and educator makes when talking to a child, using a variety of words. That was a stupid thing you did, but it does NOT mean you are stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is a matter of opinion, but it is also not the point.

Neither is civil.

That they do not mean the same thing is irrelevant.

If you want civil debate, don't allow the comment "what you said is stupid."

If they best you can tell you someone is "what you said is stupid," then don't post - because you are kidding yourself if you think that advances the debate.

In fact, find your debate coach in your school and ask them if they would allow their team to say "Your argument is stupid."
 
twenty02 said:
I don't read conspiracy theory sites, nor do l bother to look at completely meaningless online polls that have zero validity.

If you enjoy them, then have fun..but don't think you can post them here as some sort of legitimate argument, without getting called out.

I provided an actual scientific poll, completed by a respected market research firm (ORC) that's been around for 80 years. You provided? People bitching about Facebook trolls
Click to expand...

You apparently don't read much beyond what you want to believe.

Reality, what a concept. Ignorance is curable. I witnessed it that night on fb and their own site, it was the talk of the town so to speak.

Don't shoot the messenger, the facts are out there, you only need an honest look.

Watch it an weep, from CNN.



I'm not you or CO, I can be taken at my word on here. Else it is an opportune time for you to take me to task over falsehoods. You just won't ever have the chance. I may make a mistake, but it isn't because I'm trying to get over.

If you want to know how clueless CNN is listen to them talk about FB. Their take is HILARIOUS.
 
Last edited:
IU-Curmudgeon said:
So right on top of things as usual.

They had a storm of protest over their conclusions, look it up. Online in general and on their FB page, they were deleting posts all over the place since their own focus group and polls had Sander's the winner.

They removed their online poll that showed Sanders won the night of the debate.

The owners of CNN are in the Top 10 contributors for Hillary...

> Edit

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/10/15/cnn-deletes-pro-bernie-sanders-poll-and-user-comments/

So yeah, I am claiming exactly that.
Click to expand...
They probably did not remove the poll, http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ernet-cnn-did-not-delete-its-poll-showing-be/
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
IU-Curmudgeon said:
You apparently don't read much beyond what you want to believe.

Reality, what a concept. Ignorance is curable. I witnessed it that night on fb and their own site, it was the talk of the town so to speak.

Don't shoot the messenger, the facts are out there, you only need an honest look.

Watch it an weep, from CNN.

View embedded media


I'm not you or CO, I can be taken at my word on here. Else it is an opportune time for you to take me to task over falsehoods. You just won't ever have the chance. I may make a mistake, but it isn't because I'm trying to get over.

If you want to know how clueless CNN is listen to them talk about FB. Their take is HILARIOUS.
Click to expand...

Weep? Why? It's a damn Facebook poll...no one argued that Sanders won it. I pointed out it the poll was meaningless....anyone that knows basically anything about the internet, and politics, and statistics 101 knows that it is meaningless.

Ron Paul won every similar online poll by massive numbers in the debates he was in during 2008 and 2012.

Look familiar?

https://www.rt.com/usa/fox-paul-debate-poll-257/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
shrug, show me where I've said otherwise on the polls. Just telling you what CNN did the night of. I even mentioned it.

You figure out the rest for yourself. I certainly can't expect you to admit wrong here, that just isn't done. I was told that early on.

I'm still going with the larger sample btw. unscientific or no. If their focus group were random and the majority felt Sanders won...

I'll go with the unscientific poll from online, the focus groups and not put much faith in your so called "scientific" poll. We already know the MSM is ignoring Sanders.
 
Last edited:
IU-Curmudgeon said:
shrug, show me where I've said otherwise on the polls. Just telling you what CNN did the night of. I even mentioned it.

You figure out the rest for yourself. I certainly can't expect you to admit wrong here, that just isn't done. I was told that early on.

I'm still going with the larger sample btw. unscientific or no.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are totally incoherent.

Either a Facebook poll is valid or it isn't...which is it?

Marvin posted above that your CNN conspiracy was a 'pants on fire' lie...but you don't deal in facts or reality, so I doubt that convinces you either
 
CO. Hoosier said:
Ha, clever

I'm part of the reason pay is equal. You are part of the reason there is so much ignorance about this. ;)
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, are you claiming that gender-based pay discrimination no longer happens at all, or simply that it's become a minor problem not worth worrying about, or something else?

It sure sounds like you're claiming that it no longer happens.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Just to be clear, are you claiming that gender-based pay discrimination no longer happens at all, or simply that it's become a minor problem not worth worrying about, or something else?

It sure sounds like you're claiming that it no longer happens.
Click to expand...

You should pay attention

I'm claiming unequal pay based upon sex is against the law and carries significant civil consequences. Do people break the law? You betcha. But that isn't what we are talking about, is it.

Your comments about unequal incomes are something else. You repeat the standard Democrat talking points that statistics suggesting women, as a whole, earn less than men, as a whole, must a fortiori be the result of pay discrimination. I've asked you several times, and I'll ask again, if you are correct, I am sure you can suggest legislation to fix your issue. I'm all ears. I'm beginning to think that you and the Democrats simply want an issue to pander with knowing full well that it isn't what it seems.

As a matter of principle, I oppose all pay discrimination based upon immutable characteristics, so if you have a way to improve it, you need to quit yammering about what I say or believe and come up with something meaningful.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
You should pay attention

I'm claiming unequal pay based upon sex is against the law and carries significant civil consequences. Do people break the law? You betcha. But that isn't what we are talking about, is it.

Your comments about unequal incomes are something else. You repeat the standard Democrat talking points that statistics suggesting women, as a whole, earn less than men, as a whole, must a fortiori be the result of pay discrimination. I've asked you several times, and I'll ask again, if you are correct, I am sure you can suggest legislation to fix your issue. I'm all ears. I'm beginning to think that you and the Democrats simply want an issue to pander with knowing full well that it isn't what it seems.

As a matter of principle, I oppose all pay discrimination based upon immutable characteristics, so if you have a way to improve it, you need to quit yammering about what I say or believe and come up with something meaningful.
Click to expand...
Fine, forget it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat, "No, I didn't say that," before you go back and read the thread and realize, in fact, that I didn't say any of that.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Fine, forget it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat, "No, I didn't say that," before you go back and read the thread and realize, in fact, that I didn't say any of that.
Click to expand...

Whatever

All I know you linked with approval a newspaper article that said EXACTLY THAT with your snide dismissal of my assertion that by law pay is equal between sexes.

I know I live rent free in your head. Seems like you just can't let this go. I wasn't going to post any more about this with you and then here you come again!
 
CO. Hoosier said:
Whatever

All I know you linked with approval a newspaper article that said EXACTLY THAT with your snide dismissal of my assertion that by law pay is equal between sexes.

I know I live rent free in your head. Seems like you just can't let this go. I wasn't going to post any more about this with you and then here you come again!
Click to expand...
I didn't dismiss your assertion that equal pay is the law. I dismissed your assertion that pay was actually equal "apples to apples." That was it.

But you are right. I'm the one who restarted our conversation with a genuine question meant to lead to real discussion. I will endeavor not to make that mistake in the future.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
That has nothing to do with pay equality, and if you think it does, then that just proves that you don't have even the slightest idea about what the problem with pay equality actually is.
Click to expand...

Can you then explain what the problem actually is.....because I've read through all of this, including the links provided, and I've not seen anything actually describing this 'problem'.
 
The CNN/ORC International Poll was conducted by telephone October 14-17 among a random national sample of 1,028 adult Americans. Results among the 425 registered voters who say they are Democrats or independents who lean toward the Democratic Party have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Click to expand...

Things that make you go hmmm...

Reading around it appears to be that the reason she "won" is attributed to the size of her base to start with. Also Hillary's poll numbers remained relatively flat while Sander's got a significant boost out of the debate.

Sanders also got the biggest funding raising boost of candidates after the debate. Clinton campaign is not releasing their fund raising figures.

http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reaso...-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/
 
Last edited:
CO. Hoosier said:
You should pay attention

I'm claiming unequal pay based upon sex is against the law and carries significant civil consequences. Do people break the law? You betcha. But that isn't what we are talking about, is it
Click to expand...
Why does society make laws in the first place? (He asks a lawyer rhetorically. :crazyeye: ) Because that society concludes too many people are behaving in a specific manner that is detrimental to the well being the the society. So, yeah, CO, there are people who break the law. Their behavior preceded the law and as we all well know, unless they decide to agree with the law, they continue their behavior, which is newly classified as a violation of the laws of the land.

So are we debating your point that there exists a law on the behavior? No, CO, no one is debating that point. We're not that stupid, CO. We get it. There is a law. End of that debate. Even if we were ignorant enough to not be aware of that law, we're smart enough to run with the datum, once presented it. Okay? Ready to move on?

What we are debating is whether it is still an issue, despite the law, and whether it makes any sense for Hillary to bring it up in a political debate. Your implication, correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not an issue because we have a law. Well, guess what, a whole lot of people adopt a more pragmatic view of life, namely, that women still get screwed big time, despite 50-year-old laws, and it's an important issue. I personally think it's a hugely important issue for society, for our economy, for our children, for everyone, even as it has consequences on you, whether you agree or not.

So I applaud Hillary for raising the issue. Onions to all the candidates, male or otherwise, who give it short shrift. I consider them to be ignoramuses in that regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBabbitt
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Just to be clear, are you claiming that gender-based pay discrimination no longer happens at all, or simply that it's become a minor problem not worth worrying about, or something else?

It sure sounds like you're claiming that it no longer happens.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Goat. Excellent question. This really clarified where CO is at and why this "debate" was going nowhere. Kudos.
 
twenty02 said:
Can you then explain what the problem actually is.....because I've read through all of this, including the links provided, and I've not seen anything actually describing this 'problem'.
Click to expand...
Think about it. Our world is all about differences in power. People running a company, absent laws, wield absolute power over their workers. I don't like you, I fire you. Bye bye. Some people are more aggressive than others. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Forgiving my indulgence in stereotypes, women tend to have less testosterone, can be less assertive, more willing to take what they can get at the workplace, regardless of their actual productivity. Differences can and do become institutionalized and can be extremely difficult to prove or extirpate. And so on...I doubt I really need to elaborate further.
 
IU-Curmudgeon said:
Things that make you go hmmm...

Reading around it appears to be that the reason she "won" is attributed to the size of her base to start with. Also Hillary's poll numbers remained relatively flat while Sander's got a significant boost out of the debate.

Sanders also got the biggest funding raising boost of candidates after the debate. Clinton campaign is not releasing their fund raising figures.

http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reaso...-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/
Click to expand...

No only makes you go hmm...and other conspiracy minded cranks.

Here is another one for you showing Hillary support bolstered post debate

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clin...gaining-sanders-biden-alike/story?id=34580456
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IUNorth

My current take on Woody...version 173 or so...

Replies
215
Views
6K
TheHoosier.com IU Hoop Forum
ndhuntington
ndhuntington
Circlejoe

Racial animosity among Trump voters

Replies
77
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
bailey777
bailey777
CO. Hoosier

The Thrill is Gone

Replies
86
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
BigDogMan
B
Big Red Crimson Buffalo

Things to ponder…….

Replies
9
Views
2K
IU Football Board
travlinhoosier
T
JamieDimonsBalls

WaPo Top 10 Dem Presidential Nominees

Replies
176
Views
6K
The Water Cooler
IUCrazy2
I
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back