User:Avida Dollars/Robrail

The unproductive, inflammatory, and probably crazy rantings of RobSmith have been relocated here at the Robrail, once the ensuing arguments caused by his needling got out of control. Not everything he says belongs here, only the outraged protests against comments that are borderline-trolling and his infinite replies. If you insist on wasting time engaging in enormous, ten-page arguments with Rob, please do so here. Thank you.

Forward

Forward was Nixon's slogan, too. [1] nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Cow...Hammer^time! 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob, do you actually read the links you use? The one above is all about how Nixon's slogan was "Bring Us Together" and never mentions "forward" as a slogan. Bad Faith (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does: White House Chief of Staff-designate H. R. Haldeman was able to change the theme to "Forward Together.", but I'm not sure why he thinks that's relevant. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant for once. If "Forward" makes Obama a commie-Nazi, then Nixon must be one too. You won't hear Karajou saying that though. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He should have gone with something safe like "God is with us" --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 17:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm a cheesehead, and Wisconsin was founded in 1848 by refugees from the w:Revolutions of 1848. It's Constitution reflects many of the basic principles of the 1848 Revolutions. "Forward" is Wisconsin's state motto. Both are represented on the flag. I am appalled and offended by Karajou's ignorance, insensitivity, and brazen stupidity. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/Niceil'Dictator Mikal 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos, you dumbfuck. Karajou did not make the claim "Forward" was commie/socialist/fascist slogan, the mainstream Washington Times did. You created a false & deceptive thread with no other purpose than an ad hominem. Did you bother to check the veracity or verifiability of Karajou's claim before posting? That sort of thing is typical of how communists misrepresent facts. Asshole. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/Nice--il'Dictator Mikal 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok..so I haven't posted for long, long time, but will someone please remind me what is the purpose of nobs; i.e. what is he is for...I thought he was one of the elite of CP and, as such, knew the secrets of the universe; knew where the liberals were hiding; knew how many commies made four, etc. etc. etc.. However, now he just seems to pop up and make snarky remarks about his former best mates on the [to my mind, mistaken] premise that anyone gives a damn what someone who got thrown out of CP after their rather pathetic coup attempt failed, is even remotely interesting here...then again I could well be wrong...and it is late at night here...and furthermore, I suspect his knowledge of the price of fish is minimal.. Mick McT (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What is nobs for? nobs is for the success of a diverse community on handling controversial and difficult partisan subjects -- something both CP & RW have not mastered yet. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We haven't? You HAVE? Where did parallel useful universe rob come form? does he have a goatee? il'Dictator Mikal 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobs is for one peg in cribbage. Omar (gibber) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation: nobs is for derailing every conversation to whatever he wants to rant about and is very confused why people don't appreciate his insights. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For much the same reason he's puzzled as to why CP doesn't value his excellent headline writing skills. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yah well when Obama get's re-elcted you can thank Andy for keeping me off CP Main Page and giving TerryH & Ken the run of the roost. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What?il'Dictator Mikal 20:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing Rob. When you make jokes like that more than half the site thinks you're serious. It doesn't help. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He's so delusional in other areas of his thinking (COMMIE AGITPROP!) it's hard to tell when he's trying to be funny or when he's serious. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dick, seriously look at Andy's Obama's-a-Muslim crap. It's inserted in a bunch of text I wrote (maybe I should exercise my Copyright clause that gives me retention). Questioning Obama's claim to be a Christian by impugning him as a godless commie is more plausible and believable then Andy going off half cocked on half baked bullshit & conspiracy theories that only helps Obama. And the source cited on this thread about Forward being a commie slogan adds to the perception Obama is a godless commie rather than muslim. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Or it would, if anyone read it, but no one does. No one takes CP seriously, so they can (and do) say whatever they want and it doesn't matter. RW has about as much traffic as they do these days and believe me, we ain't swinging any elections here. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the record: I was inactive in 2008 and Obama won. I was active in the 2010 cycle, and Pelosi is toast. Evan Ratvandals look back to golden days me & TK (despite our differences) managed MPR and see now what's it's become - and how it's affected the rest of the project. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Even you aren't stupid enough to think that you had any effect on the 2008 or 2010 elections, are you? Shit, maybe you are. Well, just in case you do harbor such delusions, let me state clearly and frankly that neither election had anything to do with you. As for MPR. Yeah, it was probably slightly less ridiculous back when you were active. That's saying very little. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy censoring facts

Look at the most recent Unemployment filings YTD. But Andy would rather have Ken's goat fuckers in England as if that is going to persuade anyone Obama is a communist or a muslim. Tell me now, Andy, Who is "censoring facts"? . nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Argue with Andy on his own site (or email or whatever). If you have a point we care about let us know. Are you asserting that CP is a detriment to the conservative cause? Thank you Captain Obvious; we've been saying that for years. CP is utterly irrelevant for anything other than pointing and laughing. Nothing it has ever done has had any other measurable effect. One of the funniest things I read in a while was when Andy asserted that CP was probably the single most significant cause of the shift to the right in the 2010 elections. Andy is a megalomaniac completely removed from reality. I assumed he was the only one who thought CP swung the outcome of an election. I guess I was wrong. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a year. Andy shit canning the author of what he admits is his only relevant success (cp:Recovery Summer) is a testament of his poor editorial judgement. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, how stoopid are you Rob? A stopped clock is right twice a year?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Look at the most recent price of fish YTD. Go ahead and deny the relevance of that. I dare you. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

When unemployment bites you in the ass you won't be laughing. That chart shows virtually all reductions in unemployment achieved this year have been wiped out already. Looks like 2012 will not be a jobs recovery year. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobbykins, How to lie with statistics is not an instruction manual. Why don't you post the chart for the unemployment rate instead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you're such a dishonest piece of shit, but you know that already. I'm just glad that no one of import takes you seriously. How long did it take you to make that graph look as bad as possible? Look what I can make it do! Cow...Hammer^time! 22:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually take it back to the Bush years. But yeah, the unemployment rate is probably a better indicator. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• That was then. This is now. These totals are of monthly first time filings for unemployment. Clearly, recent trends over the last few weeks show jobloss is increasing.
• Unemployment is reported monthly, based upon these new filings minus those who's benefits run out or find work, with adjustments for population growth & "participation rate eligibility".
• The longterm Unemployed will not forget Obama basically told them to fuck off his first year in office, while he pursued a pipe dream "signature accomplishment", Obamacare, which the Supreme Court is about to throw in the trash can.
• After three years, we're losing 400,000 jobs per month, and the data shows the direction of trend is rising, not falling.
• Why stay the course? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously sticking with this? You could say the same about this period, but hey look, it went right back down again. It's like if you were to see one day of the DOW falling 300 points after months of it going up, flipping out and yanking all of your money out of the stock market because you saw another recession on the horizon. But again, you already know this and you're being intentionally obtuse. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Jeeves, Notice something about both years, 2011 and 2012; both years run contrary to established seasonal trends. April is traditionally "the hiring month", agriculture, construction, etc., all pick up in the spring. Employment generally increases more in June with part time student an seasonal workers. By June, one has a pretty good picture how the whole year will turn out. In recent years, and particularly since Obama, there is no April hiring season. Business planners, risk takers, and job creators then have a good idea what the prospects for income and hiring this year will be, and what the direction of Recovery will take. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not go look at the data, you simpleton. I did. For every year for which month by month data is available, April shows no consistent pattern in initial jobless claims. Some years they were up, others it was down. Usually by about the same amount. Neither was the trend in April a good predictor of the overall trend for the year. In fact, quite the opposite. This is bullshit you have just plucked from your arse to defend the indefensible. You can't read a graph, or if you can then you're just a liar. You have an axe to grind and no amount of actual data will dissuade you from your lunacy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The April-June quarter in the business cycle is typically the season of most hiring (spring planting, construction and building in cold weather climates, etc). It continues throughout the July-Sept quarter with student & part time help. Oct-Dec is marked by layoffs after harvest and cold weather limiting construction output, with a year end retail sales bump. Jan-Mar is the bottom of the cycle, and ends with the lenten fast, cause the business cycle is so deeply ingrained in human consciousness and experience it's become a religious practice to survive the last few months until the April planting season brings hope for prosperity again. Jesus fuck, don't embarrasses yourself with your asinine positions that any 101 Business or Economics course can disprove. Are that much of dedicated partisan you are willing to shed your pretense to faith in established science, to make fool hearty statements in a lame effort to defend undefendable positions? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Gah. This isn't him being obtuse, this is him being a moron. Can't you fucking read the graph in an honest way, nobbykins? One month isn't a fucking trend, you ignoramus. What the graph shows is a recovery from recession with new unemployment claims reaching heading back down from their previous highs towards the standard churn level. If you drew a best fit line through it, the trend would be downwards unless you deliberately choose the sample period to be only one month... just like you did. I can't tell if you're lying to yourself or just to us, but nobody is here is being fooled. Go peddle your shit elsewhere. I'm sure Free Republic would just eat up your commie spiel. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Rob is obviously just trying to get a reaction out of you lot - just let it go. Alternatively stop bitching about his near-schizophrenic non sequiters and taking him to the coop every other month and just settle into a game of troll tennis. Tielec01 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeeves, the UK is already in Recession, Germany teeters and likely will go to. Then all of Europe. Sine US growth is marginal (.02 percent), and American exports to Europe account for 24% of all US exports, what impact will lower demand from Europe have on US exports and unemployment -- this year? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? --_transResident Transfan^form! 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, {{Rob}} now works. Produces: ^{That is interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of fish?} --Sasayaki (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The price of fish goes down as the demand for fish goes down as unemployment rises, and unemployment in the fishing industry likewise rises. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh what fantastic timing. Going to adjust your graph now, Rob? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Did so. The moving average flattened off a bit, but it doesn't look any better. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You do know how averages work, right? Cow...Hammer^time! 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You do know what a moving average is, right? That is what the BLS reports -- a four week moving average. The Monthly Unemployment Rate uses a little more than 4 weeks to be calculated. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit break

"After three years, we're losing 400,000 jobs per month, and the data shows the direction of trend is rising, not falling."

Where is your evidence for this? This is the trend of the total workforce under Obama. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all reductions in unemployment filings Year to Date were wiped out in April. If 2012 is to be a Jobs Recovery year (there are no more jobs today than 12 years ago - despite dramatic population increase) the trend show otherwise. The Unemployment Rate, unlike hard scientific and mathematical data like the number of new jobless claims, or the size of workforce payrolls, can be manipulated by guesswork, such as guessing how many unemployed pregnant women in any given month are not looking for work versus how many unemployed pregnant woman are actively seeking work. There is no scientific way to measure this, it is pseudoscience. But the field of economics has adopted measures to produce workforce participation and eligibility index which the Unemployment Rate -- expressed as a percentage and not hard numerical data -- is based upon. The Obama BLS currently holds the workforce participation rate -- eligible adults actively seeking work (based on guesswork not science) -- at least 3 percentage points below a longterm historical average. 3 percentage points of 165 million adults is 5 million added to the official "unemployed". nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM to Mr. Anon: and seriously, please look at the psuedoscientific claims of your chart (you and I are using the same BLS workforce data). While your chart disclaims the 8 million jobs created by Bush, it credits the same three million jobs created by Clinton (from 1999 to 2001) to Obama. This flawed logic and methodology is easily observable from the chart. The BLS matrix data with hard numbers would show this, as well. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM to ADDENDUM: Beneath the chart it says, "9 million new jobs were needed just to keep up with the growth of the workforce." This is like saying, "9 million more apples were needed to keep up with the growth of apple production." I think he meant to say "growth of population", not "growth of workforce", but that would require additional qualification. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The chart I showed does not claim anything about Clinton's job numbers being Obama's. Remember that this is measuring things by fiscal year, so it may look different than other charts. Nothing you said backs up your claim that the workforce is losing 400,000 jobs a month - that is bullshit. The workforce is up under Obama. Obviously it isn't much higher than it ever got under Clinton; it takes time to fully recover from a recession, but this proves that the recession is over. Many economists (such as Paul Krugman) believe that the economy could have recovered fast with a bigger stimulus, but the President is limited by his Congress. The DOW is nearing its all time high, and for the first time since Clinton budget deficits are getting smaller (contrary to popular belief - 2009 was on Bush's budget). Mr. Anon (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not say the workforce is losing 400,000 jobs per month -- workforce and initial claims are two different measurements.

While workforce payrolls are hard data collected by the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury and others, on the number of workers receiving paychecks and making payroll tax contributions, the weekly first time UC filings are added up every month to produce new UC recipients, offset by those whose benefits expire or find jobs. The Unemployment Rate is not defined only as UC recipients.

The BLS reports that UC claims are up 400,000. If job growth is to continue, it must produce more than 400,000 jobs per month, according to the most recent data. Obama's performance, or what has been the rate of increase in the workforce, has been something like only 225,000 jobs per month, at best. (If you look at the data on your chart, 3.1 million and divide that by Obama's oft stated claim of 24 month of job growth, the equation looks like this: 3.1m / 24 = 129,000 jobs created per month. It would look worse if we used the 36 months Obama has been in office. It is safe to say, in the month of April 2012 the rate of job loss was 2 to 3 times higher than jobs being created under Obama.) nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If you are going to count the workforce growing from 129m to 132m twice under Clinton and Obama, to be scientifically consistent you would need to count the workforce growing from 129m to 132m under under George Bush as well. This is the third time the same 3 million jobs were created -- the third time the workforce has grown from 129m to 132m in the past 12 years. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You compare apples and oranges. The 200,000 job gains per month number refers to the net private sector growth, which means that the 400,000 unemployment claims are being more than made up for by.

It is true that recently, job gains have slowed. Of course, it would be helpful if Reagan and his spawns didn't raise the debt by a total o $12 trillion, so that Obama could pass a few more stimulus bills to address this...

Your claim about Bush's job gains is irrelevant. We are talking about net job gains and losses. Sure, Bush ended a recession at the beginning of his term, but it took much longer than it did for Obama. We'll even give Bush credit for slowing down job losses in his last fiscal year (2009). But Bush has a net job loss, since the recession took away all the jobs he created in the middle of his term. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No. You've expressed a willingness to use pseudoscience for partisan purposes. So be it. Net gains are jobs created offset by losses; we'll just have to wait for monthly totals on the workforce. The initial claims are weekly data that gives a heads up on monthly totals.

Reagan trickle down turned into a flood of prosperity and job creation under Clinton that all Americans benefited from. Clinton, to his credit, largely left the Reagan reforms intact and longterm foundations of supplyside predictably reaped benefits. Particularly Reagan's tax cuts for business R&D, which produced Microsoft, Apple, Motorola upgrading to cell phones, and a shitload of other high tech firms and jobs. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reaganomics was good for the economy sure; when you pump up the debt that much even Keynesians admit you'll create some jobs. Only thing is, Clinton presided under just as good job growth (exiting the Bush Sr. recession that you conveniently ignore) and ended up reducing the debt. Oh, and he raised taxes on some people.

I love how you disregard the fact that Reagan skyrocketed the debt to an extreme, despite the fact that his major platform was to reduce the debt more than any other president. I love how you disregard the fact that Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton (none of which were Reaganomists) all reduced the debt and had it not been for St. Ronnie, they would have eliminated our WWII debt completely. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Johnson reduced the debt? That's a good one! Johnson raided the Social Security Trust Fund to fund the Vietnam War rather than raise taxes, and bankruptcy of the Fund now, 50 years later, will add how much to the debt in future years?

The only modification to the Reagan program Clinton did was a 10% surtax on top earners (from 35% to %39.5%). This is a text book parallel case to Johnson 1969 surtax as when is the right to time for a tax increase -- at the peak of the business cycle, not in the early stages of recovery or the pit of a recession. Clinton's social spending was largely cosmetic, Americops for example, massively offset by betraying and fucking over the welfare queens who helped put him in office. Other than that, he was a fiscal conservative and behaved like perfect supplysider. He had more faith in VooDoo Economics than Bush Sr did.

The idea of tax cuts for the rich originated with John Kennedy. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy cut the top rate from 91% to 77%. In the reality-challenged world of Republicans today, that's relevant to a discussion of raising the rate on million dollar+ incomes to 39.6%. The numbers don't matter. It's about Kennedy. Whoover (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to begin somewhere. Unlike the anti-rich hate speech of FDR & Obama, JFK argued trickle down and implemented a program. And the max rate of 39.6% begins at $200k, not on millionaires as the communist inflammatory rhetoric implies. 200k is a much as a working couple -- a teacher & fireman for example -- earn where both are sucking the public tit payroll. That's hardly millionaires. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘200k is more than double my household income with two full time "professional level" wage-earners. Average household income for my town is around 80k and my county has some of the highest cost of living in the country - a one bedroom condo starts at 150k and most single-family homes are closer to half a million here. Are you sure you aren't just making shit up? Omar (gibber) 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course he's making shit up. He lives in a fantasy world where teachers and machine operators live it large on huge union-inflated pay checks. He's a lunatic who talks constantly about commie agitprop, but can't tell real propaganda when it drops in to his inbox from his friendly local GOP candidate. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

He's also making the 200k up. There is no max rate of 39.6% today. Where it cut in last time is irrelevant. The proposal is to have it come back, applying to $1,000,000 incomes. Whoover (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not true. It depends on filing status. The max rate of 35% will expire at the end of this year and revert back to 39.6% unless the Obama-Bush Tax Cuts are extended. A married person filing separately pays the top rate of 35% at $189,575 (Schedule Y-2). And a community where households average $80k can additionally be subject to rich man's Alternative Minimum Tax. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I really can't tell if you're just trolling now or just immensely stupid. If they're married and filing separately, it starts at $189,575 for each person of the couple. And don't bullshit me and say that's not what you meant, because you just said "200k is a much as a working couple ... earn". Cow...Hammer^time! 19:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at Schedule Y-1, Married filing joint will pay 33% at $212,000 in income. And however you cut it, they may pay the rich man's AMT in addition to income tax. And whatever you say, I've debunked the notion the max rate only applies to millionaires. It can begin as low as $189k. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So basically you've been shown to be wrong, so you just change the subject and pretend you were right. Nice work. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. User:Whoever here denied the max rate applied at $200k, I showed where it did. President Obama ran on a platform to RAISE the maximum rate from 35% to 39.6% for income earners, regardless of filing status, who earned as little as $200k. This is a fact. Fact. [2][3] nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not the law now. If Norquists's Raiders can't find the balls to negotiate with Obama, he's said he will let the cut expire. It's a bargaining position. Only in right-wing wet dreams would the bargaining position be "if we can't agree, let's extend the cuts." That said, nobody wants the total expiration. Obama has offered, many times, a version where the 39.6% rate becomes the "millionaires' bracket." Sadly, Boehner probably couldn't get his caucus to do much of anything so Obama might have to make good on his threat. But at this point, the 39.6% bracket is as hypothetical as the Gingrich Administration. And it's Whoover (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes ("this would include a public school teacher and a police officer filing jointly"). So they pay 70% of Federal revenues (revenues + deficit = total federal spending). 70% of 30% (revenues as % of GDP) = 21%. Scully says here (p.3) the optimum taxation take is 19.3% of GDP, and the current 30% of GDP lowers growth by half. Reducing taxes to 19.3% of GDP would raise the wp:Gini coefficient and median household income by $20,000 over ten years, instead of the $11,000 projected (see p.2). The people in the top brackets are already paying too much, and the rest of us suffer because of the resulting slow growth. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't even try arguing that the rich "pay to much". Mr. Anon (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So the basic argument is taxes should be raised to meet federal spending, despite any value or justifiability to the level of federal spending even if a consensus of economists say bloated or excessive federal spending hampers and impedes growth and is harmful to very people it is intended to aid. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Rob

The worst thing about your trickle down bullshit is you don't even realise how totally irrelevant personal income taxes are to your "growth" and "investment" you claim to want to stimulate. Here's a fucking clue. If people were going to invest that money in their business, they wouldn't go around the ridiculously circuitous route of paying themselves the money, subjecting it to income tax then investing it back in to their business. They'd keep the fucking money in their business in the first place.

People who want to slash income tax are doing it out of greed. Pure and simple greed. They also want to zero capital gains tax, because that's another route by which the rich get their personal money. They're looting your country one tax at a time and you don't even have the sense to stand up and yell STOP. When there's no capital gains tax and no inheritance tax, the rich greedy fuckers will just take their money out of the country and you'll be left with an empty fucking shell. The only thing that's going to trickle down on you is serfdom, you stupid wanker. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck do you know? you ain't even American. Yes, in you're country people pay taxes to dig fresh water wells, and educate people to wash their hands after wiping their ass, but economics is a little more complicated than your narrow experience. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

you ain't even American America is a shit-hole and Americains, for the most part, are lumbering pasty retards with shit for brains. Ace^Moderator 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You know who else doesn't think people should wipe their asses after taking a shit? Andy. He's American. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And Jesus. He's American too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This conversation has gotten out of hand. I'm sorry Rob, but I can't continue this here, not when this thread has degenerated to this level. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Rob has gotten so out of control that he's making even rational(wiki; see what I did there?) Americans seem like, "lumbering pasty retards with shit for brains". Shut the fuck Rob. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This page needs a category

This page needs a Category. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't--il'Dictator Mikal 02:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, there's a lot of good stuff here. Several editors put in good research links and arguments. It may be needed for future reference, cause we will be over much of this same material again (less Jeeves & Mikalos trolling, hopefully). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No there isn't. Responses to your trolling is not usually good research and arguments--it's basic stuff that a seventh-grader would know. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll be over it again because you will bring it u[ again, for fuck all reason, like everything else. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No. We'll be over it again when Unemployment Rate numbers come out. And that will go on for the next six months. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/care--il'Dictator Mikal 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The 86,000,000 Unemployed in the United States now see how considerate of their suffering you are. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And you DO care Rob?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see you doing anything but trying to quash discussion of their plight. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

When their lot in life gets worse or better because some nobodies on some obscure anti-bullshit wiki, with many members not even in the same country aren't activly discussing them, you let me know. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It almost counts as a turdblossom, if that helps. Peter ^{is procrastinating.} 04:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Heredity of homosexuality

Let's suppose for a moment that an eight year old kid raped by Sandusky becomes emotionally fucked up and pursues a gay lifstyle as an adult. Does the argument that the kid was born gay still apply? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Eat a bag of Vaginas Rob. --Revolverman (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

UTC)

You have that wrong. Rob needs to eat a bag of shit from an eight year old boy. Rob, you fucking prick, don't you dare try to make this an anti-gay sentiment. What if one of those victims rapes an eight year old girl? Will you breath a sigh of relief because, thank god, at least he's not gay. Fuck you Rob. I hope you're sterile. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's suppose for a moment I punch you really hard in the jaw and as a result you start growing huge hairy tits on your back. What the hell does being raped have to do with an individual's sexual orientation? No, wait, don't answer that. I have no interest in trying to learn more about how you think. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Being sexually molested does not change an individual's sexual orientation though it can cause how an individual expresses their sexuality to change. This is why victims of sexual molestation often act out sexually including sometimes acting out their rape. Ayzmo (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, Rob. Wrote a huge post but just deleted it... instead, I'll just echo what Ayzmo said. Also, eat a dick and turn into the biggest campiest queer ever. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it is a scientific fact all gays are born gay, and none become gay because of a confused sexual identity as the result of being victim of sexual abuse as a child. Good, that may in keeping with RW's Mission Statement to refute junk science. Likewise, one can imagine there is no relationship whatsoever between female sexual abuse as a child and becoming a prostitute in later life. Thank God for the wonders of modern science, otherwise we'd still be living in the dark ages of superstition. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're being an asshole Rob. Molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation. You know that, but you're trying to prove some sort of asinine point. Fuck off. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, my question to you is, do you think anything could turn you gay? If I bombarded your userpage with dicks, would you be tempted to go out and suck one? It's a serious question for anyone who thinks sexuality isn't essentially set chemically at birth. Could YOUR sexuality be changed by having a dude hump you? Edit: Also, work as a prostitute is literally fucking people you don't want to fuck. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with it, although hookers do have the right to refuse clients they very rarely do this for reasons of 'he's not hot enough'. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2) Bzzzzt. Wrong. The question is not, Does childhood sexual abuse impact sexual orientation, it is, Can childhood sexual abuse impact sexual identity. And the notion all gays are born gay should be treated as junk science.

@Sasayaki, Ace tried that. Didn't work. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Rob is right about this. It's just like when an shooting victim gets shot in the leg, and then can't walk. That totally disproves that people are born with deformed legs. QED Carlaugust (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

CSA affects attachment style and contributes to personality disorders, both of which can lead to questioning sexuality and gender identities. And if I'm wrong I expect to be excoriated with obscenities. 15:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you're thinking about it black and white as though people are either all born gay or none are. That is of course a fallicy as you must know. The brain is incredibly powerful and we can act against our natures. You won't be happy doing it but you can do it. The "Ex-Gays" out there are "straight" but not. The idea that someone can turn gay because of sexual abuse is pretty absurd. Victims of sexual abuse, even if their assailant is same-sex overwhelmingly identify as straight. There are cases where individuals act out sexually with members of the same sex after their trauma but go on to identify as straight because that is their orientation. You really should go read through the literature. Ayzmo (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's really no disagreement here. You've nailed it, not all practicing gays are born gay (I'll reserve comment on the science that claims people are allegedly born gay). And you'd probably agree that some childhood abuse victims with a later identity crisis may never find their born heterosexual identity. Likewise, someone earlier alluded to a notion people do not choose to become gay later life, which is patently untrue and one form of what in times past was called as a mid-life crisis. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and ignore Rob, because I honestly have no idea what the hell he's saying. So back to Kara. I'm going to change a couple of words in his post; tell me if it's not just as true.

Your typical, priest-infested Church, where freedom of speech is outlawed, freedom of religion is banned for non-Christians, where the free-flow of ideas is stifled if they don't agree with it, and in the case of Catholic Church, where officials had covered up the sexual assaults by many men because it might get them "bad publicity"

Carlaugust (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What Rob said is offensive, but not because he claims that homosexuality can be a product of environment rather than genetics. I have no idea what causes one's sexual orientation, and environment and experience (even abuse) might have something to do with it as far as I know. What is disturbing is that he's fantasizing about how to use victims of childhood sexual abuse in order to score some sort of "political" points. These are real children who've suffered real harm, Rob. The way that you treat them as imaginary playthings for making some sort of point or other is truly disgusting. Phiwum (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuck ya. I've done nothing but address the science on the subject. Politicizing this mess? Who posted a statement above that Joe Paterno, himself a victim of guilt by association smears, spoke at the RNC Convention, and what the fuck does that have to do with Sandusky's conviction? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

moved 23:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks around.* *Inserts actual science into conversation.* *Leaves.* Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sniffs* *Balances discussion with more science.* *Stubs toe on the way out.* nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Ryan in 2002 arguing for fiscal stimulus. What would Ayn Rand say? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember we're talking about the woman who supposedly took SS when she needed it the most. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So, according to the MSNBC link posted then, the Bush Tax Cut was a Keynesian Stimulus. Thanks for clarifying that for us. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Rob Needs to Learn to Read More Carefully, Example #263. Bush tax cuts were earlier and later; while the Bush stimulus had some tax cuts, these were mostly in the $50 billion lower-tax zone implemented in NYC and changes to taxation on financing provisions. But hey, please continue to alter history however it suits the requirements of your ideology.--^talk 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it has already been established that Rob is practically illiterate. Vulpius (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Directly from the MSNBC link:

in 2002, when then-President Bush was seeking a roughly $120 billion package of tax cuts, tax incentives for business and unemployment benefits to jump-start the economy [bold in original]

Tax cuts and tax incentives for business. The only government spending was Unemployment, which incidentally, does not go to create jobs. No direct stimulus spending on government make-work projects. Yet the bloated deficits caused by tax cuts is called "stimulus". nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Either your economics teacher were podheads or you are an idiot, or both. Unemployment benefits keep the economy going in massive way, by keeping up spending of the unemployed up (or given the economy, even increasing it) — they supply the demand needed to increase the supply, which if not existened would completely break away, create more unemployment and continue in a ripple effect until the economy has arrived at a state of depression (if nothing new comes along). That is, if you don't believe benevolent companies will make a loss because they give a shit about you. --K. (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your argument is now, Rob... you started off stating that this now reveals that MSNBC were declaring the Bush tax cuts to be Keynsian stimulus. This is not true, really, because Keynes wasn't even mentioned in the article, and he would likely have advocated infrastructure stimulus. But even worse, you just confused the bill under question with the Bush tax cuts - but those are universally regarded as the 2001 and 2003 bills, which reduced personal taxes, and not the extension of corporation carry-overs from two to three years and the one-off 30% new deduction on post-9/11 property that was instituted in the 2002 bill. Do you know why those tax cuts are not included? They no longer exist. The former had only a retroactive effect for that year, and the latter ended in 2004. Nor did the "Freedom Zone" tax cuts continue for more than a few years. It's 2012, all the "stimulative" tax cuts of the 2002 bill are long expired. It would be just stupid to call them the "Bush tax cuts," which is shorthand for the reductions in capital gains and personal income tax that are still in effect. You are laughably, immediately, blatantly wrong in a way that thrills the heart and shivers the soul.--^talk 04:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the detail of your research and will accept it momentarily at face value. But this argument goes to subheading above which implies Ryan is somewhat hypocritical because he advocated "stimulus" in 2002, supported by an MSNBC link. Now, the original poster betrays his/her own naive prejudices, thinking that "stimulus" means "Keynesian" which means "big government spending", and Ryan somehow at some pointed advocated wasteful spending programs. True, he may have advocated reckless deficits, but reckless deficits can be caused by either wasteful big government spending or tax cuts for the rich. And both tax cuts for the rich and wasteful government spending are considered (by media, politicians, and the public alike) as "stimulus".

On another note, I notice several RW articles lean a bit too much on Ron Paul to teach about the Austrian School of Economics, and many notions of Keynesianism are so outdated, not even the Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians lean on these fallacies anymore. The Monetarist POV seems balanced and well represented, but point blank claim that the Austrian School advocates a Gold Standard simply isn't true. Just because Ron Paul thinks it is doesn't mean Rationalwiki should advertise the same naive fallacy aas well. And Keynesian and the Austrian School really should not be treated as opposing ideologies, because the really are not. This is an example of allowing science to become polluted with ideology. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please leave me out of your inane babbling, nobs. The 2002 bill included extension of unemployment benefits, which qualifies as FISCAL STIMULUS. Tax cuts can also be stimulative per Keynesian models, they are just ranked with a lower multiplier effect. Also, many of the big-name Austrians (e.g., Mises, Rothbard) were goldbugs -- nothing to do with parroting Ron Paul here. Learn to read. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if you think the Austrian school has anything to do with science... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"[The] subheading above which implies Ryan is somewhat hypocritical because he advocated "stimulus" in 2002, supported by an MSNBC link."

Yes. Ryan is a hypocrite, because the reasons he gives against the 2009 stimulus are mostly reasons that also apply to the 2002 stimulus of unemployment benefits and tax breaks. The point is that he only opposes these things when it provides partisan advantage, and does not really oppose accumulating debt to stimulate the economy, despite his rhetoric.

"Now, the original poster betrays his/her own naive prejudices, thinking that "stimulus" means "Keynesian" which means "big government spending", and Ryan somehow at some pointed advocated wasteful spending programs."

No. You are assuming that because of your prejudices. The article and people here have instead just been pointing out the hypocrisy involved with his 2002 statements of "You have to spend a little to grow a little" and urging the need to "juice the economy to make sure that we can avoid a hard landing," whereas now he declares that the only solution to a recession is to slash government spending.

I'm not going to be sidetracked into discussion of the merits of stimulus or the tone of the Austrian school or that crap. If you want to argue whether or not it's a good idea to try to spur the economy with temporary tax breaks and unemployment benefit extensions, the person you want to argue with is 2002 Paul Ryan.--^talk 05:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now we've clarified several terms, "stimulus" can mean tax cuts or government spending. "Stimulus", and "stimulus spending" likewise should be clarified. "Stimulus spending" generally refers to direct spending. While Unemployment Compensation is direct spending, it is not direct spending to stimulate job growth. The oxymoron, "stimulus spending on tax cuts", while it may make sense under wp:Zero-based budgeting terminology, remains confusing for most voters of whatever ideology. Here we get into the "cost of tax cuts". How much does income you never receive cost you? I think this discussion is beneficial, and we should thank Ryan for helping draw it out in the open. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 17:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Say, have you ever thought about a job at one of those GOP crank tanks? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I like how you're pretending that the gradual revelation of your shocking ignorance is a "clarification." But yes, tax breaks have been considered stimulative, which is why 2/5 of the Obama stimulus was in the form of tax breaks. They're not very good stimulus, of course, and they're downright terrible when compared with unemployment benefits or food stamps. If you were unaware that tax cuts have been part of the stimulus discussion, then I would suggest that speaks less to a need for this discussion and more for your need to read.--^talk 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@AD: The problem with tax cuts in bills like ARRA is that the federal tax cuts are offset by state and local tax hikes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax cuts are not direct spending - they come from the income side of the ledger, not outgo, or appropriations. So there is no such thing (even in CBO parlance) as "stimulus spending on tax cuts"). So the question is what is a "Stimulus bill" intended to stimulate? (a) job creation, or (b) consumer spending? Tax cuts and incentives can have an immediate effect on job creation. So can direct spending, appropriations, grants, and awards of contracts on work projects. By contrast, the idea that food stamp and UC appropriations stimulate consumer demand, which in turn stimulates more hiring in service and retail jobs, is just another form of trickle down theory. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting series of thoughts, as you slowly come up to speed in some respects on what certain words mean, and in other respects decide to start redefining things.

A stimulus bill is intended to stimulate the economy, which includes both employment, investment, consumption, and other factors. Tax cuts are intended to stimulate these things by freeing up income to be re-invested in business or spent on consumer goods; they are not very efficient stimulus, which is why it was annoying that the GOP insisted on so much of them, but c'est la vie. Food stamps and unemployment are much better stimulus, because it puts money directly into the hands of people who are almost certain to spend it immediately on a variety of important direct purchases. This is not trickle-down theory, because that label describes tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and corporations under the theory that those benefits will then "trickle down" from the top in the form of increased hiring and raises. If you start calling food stamps trickle-down economics, you will (a) be in laughable violation of the salient element of the metaphor and (b) simply be speaking a different language than anyone else. Unfortunately, you can't just redefine terms until you're correct.--^talk 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So, can we quote you, "Food Stamps and Unemployment Compensation stimulate the economy and job creation?" Is that an accurate summary? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Even New Dealers did not claim "government relief" (i.e. cash payments or food handouts) stimulated anything, or created any jobs. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ARRA

Yes, they stimulate the economy, and thereby encourage job creation. In fact, the CBO has said that. Every dollar spent on unemployment aid or foodstamps returned between .7 and 1.8 dollars in additional economic activity. Tax cuts for the middle class were a bit worse (0.6-1.5). Tax cuts for the rich were abysmal (0.2-0.6) and cuts for corporations had almost no stimulative effect (0-0.4).--^talk 01:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. But that does not answer the question. Flushing a toilet (using water) is "economic activity"; a car accident is "economic activity"; a grand mal seizure requiring medication is "economic activity." How many jobs are created by Unemployment Compensation payments? How many jobs are created by expanded food stamp appropriations? I will check your CBO source for that specific information. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

All you are speaking to is attempts to stem the tide of deflation when the consumption level (or demand) drops. You are not giving examples at all of stimulus spending to increase overall output by expanding the workforce. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The specific number of jobs varies. And I wasn't trying to avoid that question - you just didn't ask it! And flushing the toilet has zero effect on GDP, so I don't know why you would use that as an example.

In the third quarter of 2010 (the time period for which I happen to have handy data), about 670,000 jobs were directly funded by the 2008 stimulus. But, as the CBO notes, this is not the useful metric: those jobs might have existed anyway, the number does not include numerous contractors, and many additional jobs were not required to be reported. Thus, it is more useful to say that in that same period, the stimulus created between 1.4 and 3.6 million jobs, lowering the unemployment rate by 0.8 to 2.0 points, raised GDP by 1.4 to 4.1 percent, and increased 2 to 5.3 million jobs to full-time.

Now, I already gave you the GDP multiplier for the various types of stimulus. Unfortunately, I don't have the jobs multiplier on-hand. But as you saw, certain types of stimulus did work to keep the economy moving. When you give someone unemployment benefits or food stamps, they immediately go and buy basic and fundamental goods. $1 in food stamps buys $1 in groceries, supporting the grocery store and all of its employees, the supplier who sold that product to the grocery store and all of their employees, the farmer who grew the raw materials, the trucker who transported it, and so on. Those people in turn will spend their own share of that dollar, either by spending it themselves directly or by reinvesting it in the business by hiring another worker. And while the recipient of the food stamps would probably have bought some food anyway, they likely at a level where the stamps make a substantive difference in the amount of food they can afford to get. This is why food stamps and other stimulus that put money in the hands of those who need it the most are the most effective stimulus: they immediately spend it, and usually on consumer goods.

On the other hand, a tax cut for the rich or a tax cut for a corporation has enormously less effect - at least according to the CBO and most economists - because such money is less likely to be used in a way that's directly useful to the economy. While such funds might go to purchase of luxury goods, investment in research, or payroll, it's rather more likely to go into a financial institution where it will exist to help produce more money in an ephemeral way, or perhaps to pay off debt. These functions are not morally lesser than direct consumer spending, but they simply are less likely to have a stimulative effect.

This is not, of course, topical. The fact remains that your series of claims has been grotesquely wrong. You claimed that the 2002 stimulus was the "Bush tax cuts," and you're wrong. You claimed that tax cuts aren't considered stimulus, and you're wrong. Now what - are you claiming that food stamps don't stimulate the economy? Take it up with the CBO.--^talk 20:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you are addressing some of the specific points using that 3rd Quarter analysis of the effects of ARRA. Let's look at some of the problems:

• This is only a 90 day period, so claims such as, Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise, are meaningless. Either the 3.2 million that CBO couldn't specifically identify as being affected by ARRA found jobs for those 90 days, or they did not -- and they know it.
• A big swing as cited is further rendered meaningless by CBO's own disclaimer, these reports do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on U.S. employment, which could be higher or lower than the number of FTE jobs reported, meaning the number may not have even been 2 million on the low end estimate.
• We now have more data to test these estimates. Virtually all the data estimates in Table 1 came in on the low end estimates, and the GDP data I think may even be worse.
• Hence, based upon a 90 day estimate of the impact of ARRA, it's impossible to make lasting generalizations or extrapolate rules about about the multiplier effect, which the CBO itself admits is only one analytical method which has valid criticisms.
• Tax cuts in the ARRA were minimal, so it's not surprising the impact was minimal. You cannot extrapolate a standing rule of thumb about the impact of tax cuts on the multiplier from this data.

Your argument using the ARRA is solely based upon its intended countercyclical deflationary effects -- efforts to slow layoffs and stimulate consumption. Even President Obama has admitted there is no such thing as shovel ready jobs, stimulus jobs that never took place. The ARRA has done little or nothing to (a) stimulate growth, (b) stimulate job creation, (c) increase output. The workforce is in fact the same size it was 12 years ago, although population has grown. So in fact, fewer people are working than before George Bush took office (seen in the workforce participation numbers).

And lastly, flushing a toilet does in fact have an impact on personal consumption expenditures (all modern sewage systems do cost money). And PCE is the single largest component of GDP. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it's pretty bold to assert that the CBO is wrong about its job estimates and that you are correct. I went and found the most recent report.

Need I even say that it contradicts you?

It does not substantively revise the numbers from the previous report on efficacy ("CBO’s current estimates of the economic effects of ARRA for 2009 through 2012 are unchanged from its estimates published in November 2011.") You claimed that the numbers had to be revised downward. So you're wrong there.

You claim that there's not enough data to make extrapolations or measurements, which essentially is just a claim that you're smarter about the economy than the CBO. But hey, here the data set is expanded to three years, and they still state that the stimulus created or expanded employment and increased the GDP by an even greater amount than the other report claimed.

Your quote about the comprehensiveness about job claims comes from the section discussing why the direct measurements of job creation were not very accurate, by way of introducing the much more accurate indirect models from which the numbers are derived. Aren't you really, really embarrassed at making such a stupid mistake?

I just don't understand why you keeping coming back for another beating. I'm going to start a running list.

RobS falsehoods here to date:

• WaPo admits the 2002 stimulus is the Bush tax cuts.
• No one considers tax cuts to be stimulus.
• The CBO's report on the stimulus has now changed for the worse.--^talk 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think you're misreading everything. Did you actually read the link just posted, particularly pgs 16-17, ARRA’s Long-Run Effects, th whole section. I encourage you to do so. Here's a few (by far not enough) salient points:

• In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016. [bold added]
• CBO expects that the legislation will have no long-term effects on employment [bolden added; read "no long term effects" to mean neither adding to nor diminishing employment]
• ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy stems primarily from the resulting increase in government debt...increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital.
• Over the long term, the output of the economy depends on the stock of productive capital...The less productive capital there is as a result of lower private investment, the smaller will be the nation’s output over the long run.
• Some of ARRA’s provisions, including its funding for roads and highways, may add to the economy’s potential output in much the same way that private capital investment does. Others, including its funding of education, may raise long-term productivity by enhancing people’s skills. [but then again, may not].
• According to CBO’s estimates, the provisions that potentially add to long-term output account for between one-fifth and one-quarter of ARRA’s budgetary cost. [IOW the multiplier is .20 to 25 cents for every dollar of cost, with longterm falling output.]

This is hardly a ringing endorsement for the ARRA. So let me cut you off at the pass -- the pre-2010 Midterm CBO was written for a Democratic Congress, and the 2011 report for a Republican. This argument would bring into question CBO's neutrality. I for one will state I accept and agree with the above cited CBO assessments. Now to the tax question. All the CBO report states, that you cite, is the effect of ARRA tax cut provisions on overall GDP growth, not dollar for dollar offsets. And being there were few if any tax cuts in ARRA, the effect obviously was minimal. So you cannot extract a hard and fast rule on the multiplier effect of tax cuts from this report on ARRA. You would have to compare 1980s Kemp-Roth, and the Bush Era tax cuts with ARRA. ARRA has spending provisions from the spending side of the ledger; the 80s data and Bush Era data has "tax expenditures" from the revenue side. So you are comparing apples and oranges if you attempt to measure it terms of dollar cost. Employment numbers, and GDP growth, would make a fair comparison. In both cases, the Reagan & Bush programs romp the shit out this Democratic wp:boondoggle that only piled on more debt and slowed future growth. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016.

Yes. Racking up debt in order to pay for short-term stimulus costs a slight amount, in the long run. This is not a surprise. This explanation is, in fact, part of the very next paragraph after that quote. You may find it behooves you to read entire pages, rather than scanning for things that seem to make you correct without looking at their context. But then, what would you have to say other than sullen admissions that you are wrong?

• CBO expects that the legislation will have no long-term effects on employment

Yes. The end of that sentence is "because the U.S. economy will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in the long run." What the fuck is wrong with you? Why do you think I won't go and look up your quote? Did you think I wouldn't notice that the CBO expects no long-term effects on employment because they think employment will get so much better? This is just staggering.

• ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy stems primarily from the resulting increase in government debt...increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital.

Ah, there you go! You finally got to the explanatory part about your first quote. Yet weirdly, you quote it as if it was some separate condemnation of the stimulus. Do you understand words?

• Over the long term, the output of the economy depends on the stock of productive capital...The less productive capital there is as a result of lower private investment, the smaller will be the nation’s output over the long run.

Why did you clip out "the supply of labor, and productivity." from that quote? Why do you think this general statement has any assessive value?

• According to CBO’s estimates, the provisions that potentially add to long-term output account for between one-fifth and one-quarter of ARRA’s budgetary cost. [IOW the multiplier is .20 to 25 cents for every dollar of cost, with longterm falling output.]

Your failure is at such a level that it exceeds the capabilities of our own dimension, and has actually formed a spot of such dense inanity that it protrudes into additional planes of idiocy.

That whole section, including this last quote, is an assessment of the future effects of the short-term stimulus. After 2016, the short-term stimulus will have very little effect, because it is a short-term stimulus that was intended to have short-term effects. Despite that, it still manages to pay for between 20% and 25% of its cost because of the success of its improvements on education and infrastructure, yet you're claiming that this is a bad thing?

You need to read the whole report because you don't seem to understand the context for your quotes.

I for one will state I accept and agree with the above cited CBO assessments.

I'm glad. You probably regret accepting them, though, now that you realize they mean the opposite of what you thought.

All the CBO report states, that you cite, is the effect of ARRA tax cut provisions on overall GDP growth, not dollar for dollar offsets. And being there were few if any tax cuts in ARRA, the effect obviously was minimal. So you cannot extract a hard and fast rule on the multiplier effect of tax cuts from this report on ARRA.

Well, I can't. But the CBO did. The CBO says that every dollar of upper-income tax cuts produced almost no stimulative effect (between 0.1-0.6 as a multiplier). You say that the CBO doesn't have the data to make this assessment because the tax cuts were "minimal." Once again, this is essentially just a claim of greater authority by you - you're saying that you are smarter and know more than the CBO, and that their claim is wrong. That's a very interesting claim. But considering how you can't even successfully read their report, I'm inclined to doubt it.

That's what it comes down to, it seems: the CBO says that the upper-class and corporate tax cuts had almost no stimulative effect, and you're saying that the CBO is wrong. Think about that for a moment, and then reflect on the fact that until very recently you were claiming that no one thinks that tax cuts even are stimulus. Because you'd never read these CBO reports and knew nothing of the numbers. Just revel in that for a moment. I know that I am.

You are laughable and incompetent on a grand scale. I give the numbers for the short-term success of the stimulus, and you "contradict" me with the numbers for its long-term effects. And at the same time, you - a person who didn't even know what the 2002 stimulus was - are also claiming that the CBO is unable to make the judgments it's claiming. Glorious.--^talk 03:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's translate some Washington-speak to plain English:

• positive near-term macroeconomic effects, means election year vote buying; and it will reduce output slightly in the long run, means at the cost of "kicking the can down the road".

Q. Why did you clip out "the supply of labor"?

A. Manipulating the Workforce Participation Rate is the only way this administration had achieved a reduction in the Unemployment Rate. These shenanigans cannot go on forever (as the report says, "the U.S. economy will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in the long run.")

• ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy stems primarily from the resulting increase in government debt...

AD says, Yet weirdly, you quote it as if it was some separate condemnation of the stimulus.

Response: OK, let's get down to specifics. The ARRA, along with TARP and the near quadrupling of the Federal Reserve Board's balance sheet were all necessary responses to the 2008 crisis. In Keynesian Monetary Theory, it is necessary to expand the aggregate monetary bases from time to time to adjust for population and economic growth. This sort of radical expansion is not possible under a strict Gold Standard. TARP, ARRA, and the Fed's balance sheet enlargement lay the groundwork for necessary expansions of the aggregate base numbers of the Federal Budget, Nominal GDP, and the Money Supply aggregates. This is all necessary to absorb the bailout costs of toxic mortgage assets.

So federal borrowing, or running a deficit, becomes necessary to enlarge the aggregate base of federal spending which in turn has effect of enlarging the aggregate base of Real and Nominal GDP. An enlarged Federal Reserve asset base allows the Fed to purchase Treasury bills with Federal Reserve Notes. Some would say this is "inflating our way out of a crisis", and if not managed properly that could be the net effect.

Enlarging the aggregate base of the federal budget can be achieved two ways, (1) direct spending through the outlays side of the ledger, or (2) tax cuts through the revenue side of the ledger. Either way, the net effect is the same: enlarging the aggregate base of the federal budget through deficits with an eye to enlarging the overall aggregate base of real and nominal GDP, financed by an enlargement in the aggregate base of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve's issuance of Federal Reserve Notes (i.e. dollar bills) in exchange for the purchase of U.S. Treasury debt (T-bills).

If the enlargement of the aggregate base of the federal budget is done through the spending side of the ledger, competition and controversy can erupt as to what types of programs are given funding, and who is the direct beneficiary of this funding. If the spending side is pursued, it doesn't really matter if federal funding is doled out to Solyndra or the unemployed homeless, all that matters is the aggregate base become enlarged over what it had been upto 2008 -- despite the fact there is no real growth to justify such an expansion under the old aggregate base figures. Some argued (notably Paul Krugman) the ARRA was not enough to stimulate growth. He was in fact correct in this matter, given that the $787 billion price tag was intended to only slow job loss and avoided a deflationary price spiral, it wasn't enough to promote growth.

So, as Dr. Friedman said, "We are all Keynesians now". Let me briefly conclude with comparison between the effect of Reagan's revenue side expansion of the aggregates on Real GDP over the same course of time as Obama's spending side expansion of the aggregates.

Reagan.
Obama.
The Reagan growth rate is twice that of Obama's, over a sustained period. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I applaud much of your summary, above, about the mechanics and necessity for stimulus. The final nut of contention appears to be your last statement:

The Reagan growth rate is twice that of Obama's, over a sustained period.

This implies that Reagan managed his recession better than Obama managed Bush's recession. But curiously, this also means that you are dropping a whole host of everything else you have argued - almost as if you're trying to change the subject now that you found a primer on the topic, to a discussion of comparative recessions as measured by RGDP. I assume that you're ceding the point on the host of other issues, as in my list above?--^talk 23:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Here's the Bush data, but it probably does not fully reflect the effect of the 2003 tax cut. Either way, the stimulative affect of the Reagan & Bush tax cuts on aggregate GDP growth were nearly twice that of Obama's spending outlays, intending to achieve the same result. The employment data (Reagan, Bush, and Obama, while interesting, cannot be viewed in isolation without considering some factors. Mainly, holding a job for two years until the next Congressional election does not solve the underlying employment problem. The goal is to achieve longterm, sustained growth. Reagan did this. Bush did it for the duration of the Boom phase of the cycle, but not the down side. Obama has achieved pitiful growth at best, not keeping pace with population growth, and everyone cites the unsustainability of his program. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sooooo....seeing that aggregate GDP (output and employment) has not responded to the aggregate increase in the federal budget (through deficits), QE3 has been inaugurated to increase the aggregate money supply. This is putting the cart before the horse -- increase cash in circulation and hoping output and employment will catch up. It is supposed to work the other way around, increased output and employment causes demand for increased money in circulation. QE3 is aimed more at staving off deflation, rather than promoting growth. And the fact the Fed is moving now should be an eye opener how precarious the crisis is at this moment. It's sort of a replay of 2008, only this time in slow motion. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

An observation on the ephemeral nature of our political allegiances.

It has nothing to do with Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, or FDR. In 5 years, Democrats & Republicans alike will say, "Obama who?" Meanwhile, the incumbent is held responsible for every disease known to man. Rather than people own up to their responsibilities, or engage in studied debate about deeper issues, its simpler to adopt hard nosed partisanship to deal with stress and re-inforce the inclination we are all victims of an evil conspiracy rather than our own failings. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wherein Rob tries to expose a police conspiracy or...something.

Interesting discussion, ToP. After a nut case killed two cops in my town who came to his house to take him to the nut ward because the doctors and family reported he was off his medication, the mayor by Executive Order gave the Police and mental health experts the power to administer forcible medication. The Supreme Court later overruled. What's more like a fascist state? an armed populace or a government that takes away your gun and the cops force feed you experimental psych drugs? I'm with the ACLU on this one. Maybe Andy is, too. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dagnabit Rob. Normally I don't go to CP links as I don't want to inflate their page hits, but this time I did just to see if your usual drooling had anything to do with what ToP was pointing out. Naturally it didn't (no surprise I suppose), but it did make me finally see the Main Page in all its glory. Wow. Just...wow. I heard the stories and rumors, but to actually view the concentrated levels of paranoia, self-delusion, and bile up close and personal? It was like looking into the abyss and seeing it look back at you...then smile and hungrily lick its lips. I feel cold now. So cold... Anywho, moving the topic back on track, yeah typical Andy, blowing the video game dog whistle while hinting the Sandy Hook PD is covering something up. I do wonder what would happen to Andy's head if one day a shooting or bombing happened and it was discovered the shooter used to obsessively play those cruddy Bible video games for the NES or that rotten Left Behind game. Nah, nevermind. He'd probably go No True Scotsman or find some way to spin it that the offender only went off after he stopped playing them. -- Tygrehart

There is an issue ToP has lashed unto here -- the myth of the stereotypical gun-toting law 'n order types. Law enforcement has been compromised by liberal pantywaists. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The only issue I latched onto was that Andrew Schlafly is an ideologically-blind jackass. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So what do you think? Should the police be mandated to strap people down and force them to take drugs, many of which are still only experimental? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the original post; will not encourage your incessant derailing by answering. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it. A mentally ill patient killed 5 people in one day, including two cops. The city passed it's own version of wp:Kendra's Law (which Trent's friend, wp:Martin Heinrich, voted for) cause the cops wanted the power to force mentally ill people into treatment and force-feed them drugs. The Supreme Court ruled the city government exceeeded its authority. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't see how this is connected to Andy's ranting about some liberal police conspiracy to keep the truth about Sandy Hill from getting out. Sorry, Robbo. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so we're not discussing gun violence and mental illness, we're venting our spleen with our hatred of Andy Schlalfhy. Thanks for the clarification. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Robby. Have you noticed the title of this particular page? That might have tipped you off. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See, now there's your problem Rob, right there. ToP's point was to highlight Andy once again spinning a tragedy to his own ideological agenda, namely blaming video games for violence at the exclusion of all other factors, and his less than subtle hints that "liberals" are actively suppressing that as a possible motive. Your point is that the forced medicating of the mentality ill could be viewed as move towards a police state. While I'm sure in your own internal mental dialogue you found a link between these two trains of thought, because we are not privy to those dialogues your chiming in comes off as, at best, a non-equator or, at worst, an attempt to derail the topic or troll. Now please, do not misunderstand me. It's not like you haven't raised an excellent point of discussion (because in truth you have) nor are your contributions to the discussion unappreciated (because they are). However, as the subject you seem to wish to discuss does not have anything to do with subject here, I might recommend you move it to the Bar talk page where it can be thoroughly examined and debated. Baring that I feel your best course of action would be to pipe down, go back to the kiddy table, and leave the actual intellectual discourse to the adults. -- Tygrehart

Ok, so maybe the cops have their own agenda (other than discovering the truth that video games cause mental illness, etc), and that would be: establising a liberal-fascist state were only cops have guns and force whoever into treament to take psych drugs, courtesy government mental healthcare spending and Big Pharma lobbyists and donors. Does that bring it back on point? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, now you just sound like a gibbering lunatic. But thank you for trying. -- Tygrehart

Incidentally, NBC's Dateline did a story on the background of the case. The connection is clear: the cops want legislators and courts to give them some way to deal with mentally ill people on the streets cause their lives are at stake. They have another agenda other than debating video games. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

^{That is interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of fish?} Cow...Hammer^time! 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can somone with greater wikifu than I please either condense this section with the Don't Feed The Troll tags or move this to the Bar? Rob's having a hard time understanding the big people words again. --Tygrehart

The hell would we want to put this in the bar for?--^Mikal 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Robrail is what you want. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. --Tygrehart

Star Wars

It never ceases to amaze me -- grown adults into that Star Wars bullshit. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 17:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing out. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You sound like a boring person. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Much more interested in living & historic persons; but if I can find a sucker to sell a Jaba-the-hut bobblehead to, I'm all all for it. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me -- grown adults into that Jesus Christ bullshit. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark my prophetic words: 2000 years from now neither George Lucas nor Luke Skywalker will even be footnotes in human history. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 21:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

can't I be into both?--Miekal 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Come on, people, you are falling for transparent trolling.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

TK

Truthfully, I don't know what to think. TK was rabidly anti-Phelps and (according to some members of this site), gay. Yet this site never tired of attacking TK (because of his gayness or anti-Phelps stance?) so it's hard to take this question seriously. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 00:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot speak for everyone, but as far as I am aware TK was never attached for.being gay. Hypocrisy, lying, toadying, bullying, megalomania and plagiarism, yes; merely being gay, no. Генгис^unbelieving 09:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If anybody on this site had attacked TK for being gay, they would have been met with howls of derision and scorn by users on this site. TK got attacked for being a bullying tosser extroadinarie.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I read the article on TK. Seems to me that he was many things, but gay was not one of them.Necromancer^{If you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death} 13:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Rob makes shit up again. Oh, and the sky is blue as well. Hey Rob, find me any evidence that anyone one this site said TK was gay, and that he was mocked for it. TK was mocked of for being an asshole troll just like you're mocked of for being incredibly stupid. This is the first time I've heard gay accusations, and I've been here quite a long time. DickTurpis (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And Rob wonders why it's so hard to take him seriously. Do you actually think before you post this shit, or does it just come naturally? PsyGremlin^Parlez! 16:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a regular kind of stupid, it is one that takes concerted effort and years of dedicated experience. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What? Dick, I'm fairly sure I've said TK was gay. Because he was gay. This I know from being in contact with someone who knew him and from having spent time investigating him on my own. What can I say? I admit a certain fascination with someone who was so unrepentantly depraved in his treatment of others. There's nothing wrong with being gay, hence nothing to accuse the man of. Rob, TK was "attacked" because he was a horrible person who exulted in abusing, stealing from, sabotaging, and manipulating all and sundry, including his own family. I echo the aspiration that nobody would have tolerated him being criticized for being gay. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Osaka Sun

This obnoxious troll reverts relevant sourced material [4][5][6] and refuses to discuss content. [7][8]. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

and your proposal is what ? ban, limit editing, stern talking to ? Hamster (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss before revert, and not let personal prejudices dictate RW content. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 01:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

His revert comments were a semi-discussion, but, yeah, Rob was ignored. He has a point. The reverts I looked at weren't insane so talk seems like a good idea. I don't see at as Coop material, though. MarmotHead (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Rob is inserting the stuff at seemingly random places in the article. Look at Iraq War for example. His insertion might be correct, but it has no place in that part of the paragraph, or article. I also have some doubts on the quality of Memri as a source. At bit of research seem to show their reports are suspect at best, and a Mossad front at worst. So, I'm actually on Osaka's side here, given Rob's ongoing habit of trying to insert bullshit into articles. For that matter, I don't even know why we tolerate the obvious troll. PsyGremlin^Parlez! 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In short, the impact of the 1991 Gulf War in solidifying the Salafi-jihadi movement and Middle Eastern Islamic society most definitely belongs in the Iraq War article. True, the reverted portion is a piecemeal approach at this point, but it's better than just a cut & paste from the Saudi Arabia article. And rumors about MEMRI is old news, but can you produce better sources that monitor Artabic language newspapers? nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rob, maybe if you used well sourced material and proper grammar for a third grader people wouldn't revert your edits. Also, just to add about your edits to the CIA page, your references can't just be what you decided to type up. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, see, now you created a problem: there are two types of "rejectionists" (Rafida), Salafi rejectionists who reject modernism and Shi'a rejectionists who reject the Prophet's companions. The Salafi rejectionists are at war with the Shi'a rejectionists. I was trying to cleanup that ambiguous language and you just put it back in. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You stated several things about Juhayman, including that it was "led by a poorly educated bedouin name Juhayman," without reference. If you also want to speak to others lack of education use named, and not name, as well as capitalizing Bedouin. It looks like Osaka has reverted poor additions and bad editing...which is what Osaka should be doing. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Iz sory boss...don wup me... nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 20:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How is some basic level of quality control bad? It's also part of the contribution standards you agreed to. Why ask if you are getting pissy about the answer? EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There were no grammatical errors in the Iraq War contribution, with a proper cite. The basic idea there need to fully expanded into an Epilogue on the Iraq War. Osaka reverted it cause he's an asshole & lazy son-of-a-bitch whom I must educate on the necessity of establishing the relevant and historical facts some twenty years after the historical event in question. Granted, he is busy quite a bit, but he only reverted it cause he didn't have the time to investigate veracity or relevance of the material, he only did it to fuck with me. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This page is not an alternative to the article talk page. Moving this discussion there - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see Rob is wasting people's time on several talk pages. Is there one in particular this would best be moved to? Because here isn't it - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Robrail seems to have been revived recently for such purposes. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving there then. Rob, please don't waste everyone's time again - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The tone argument is all about the declaration of Islamic Rights, apparently

This is an interesting discussion, but might I add, it's not limited to just neoreactionary's, libertarian's, and identity politics. Today one must add the youthful targets of jihadi recruitment before they are radicalized. These young people are sitting on the fence, involved in these sorts of debates, and the evidence is, some become radicalized because of a feeling of exclusion. Their issues and POVs are not being addressed and ignored. So debate today, in public forums, shouldn't be limited to 'liberal v conservative', 'us vs them', etc. It is not non-believer vs Muslim, either. Somehow the issues that potential jihadi recruits who are lurking must be integrated (IMO) into these generic political discussions we have in the West, that seem to always be 'good guys vs bad guys = Left vs Right', etc., (hope this view makes sense to you all). nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

They represent a somewhat different problem. The conversation with them will be about what version of Islam to support. Being non-Muslims, our opinions come at a steep discount. We could fund Sufi foundations or try to match the Saudi propaganda machine dollar for dollar, but if word got out that some voices were getting financial support from infidels, that may not work out either. Still the underlying problem is the same: crafting a message that people will listen to rather than simply react to. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

But see you're at a disadvantage if coming from an atheistic approach. The more violent strains are going tho blame you for all their problems and do not want their children schooled to learn a Western tolerant approach. The less violent and non-violent strains will feel you are poo-pooing their troubles and complaints and not taking them seriously. We are not talking about a religion here. We are talking about a governmental system. (Look at the text of the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, for instance formulated by secular states). At a minimum, you will be hard-pressed to establish any measure of good faith without being suspected of proselytizing. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in dadsbag.} 22:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

By rewarding belief itself, all of the Abrahamic religions have a ratchet towards extremism. Believe that Jesus died for your sins, that's faith. Believe that Noah spent three days in the belly of a whale; that's faith. Believe that God will reward you if you take out a couple Jews when you blow yourself up, and that's FAITH. IMO, it really was a mistake for the Brits to have broken up the Ottoman Empire the way they did, especially since they got rid of the Caliph. The Ottoman Caliph was a powerful bureaucrat presiding over an ancient court with an elaborate protocol, just like the Pope. That helps put the kibosh on innovation and enthusiasm. Now the prestige of the Caliph has passed to the defender of the Holy Cities, which was another mistake the Brits made, favoring the Saudis over the Husseinis. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The British didn't actually abolish the office of Caliph; that was the Turkish government under Ataturk, as part of his secularization of the country. Granted, the British and the rest of the WWI Allies certainly helped it along by carving up the Ottoman Empire. Idea for an alternate history story: the caliph isn't so passive and tries to reassert his power over Turkey by playing to the religious fundamentalists and taking a stand against secularism. --Ymir (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at the text of the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (it took them only 42 years after the UN Declaration, so that is progress), Article 1: "All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam." While I can't find the complete list of signatories, Iran was the only Islamic State governed by Shariah law in 1990 when this document was signed. The rest were supposed "secular", apostate regimes that evidently disavowed evolution. Secondly, look at this passage in the Intro or Preamble: "mankind which has reached an advanced stage in materialistic science is still, and shall remain, in dire need of faith to support its civilization". Hmmm,so "materialistic science" has become a problem, according to these "secular apostate" regimes. Thirdly, look at this excerpt from a recent "call to jihad" by the guys who want to destroy these secular Islamic regimes, then deal with common infidels: "Western secular materialism creates in the minds of our children atheistic thought". At this point, it's pretty obvious what one/quarter of our fellow earthlings are thinking and what their grievances are, be them alleged "secular" by our Western definition, or be they violent Jihadis who want to dispose of Muslims who have compromised with the West. So their grievance against "Western secular materilism" and "Western secular atheism" should not, IMO, be poo-poohed as if they are a bunch of uneducated, unelightened third world spear chuckers deserving to be ignored. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)