The Glade 4.0

Those are nice kneecaps you have.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Seems pretty clear that he means Woodward will regret publicly staking out a position that's obviously wrong because doing so will hurt his professional reputation, not because of any implied payback by the Administration.

Indeed. Point of fact, the best way to threaten people is in a friendly manner. That way, if there's a recording somewhere, you can spin it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

What's your problem? Anyone yank your chain?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

My problem was that I apparently clicked the wrong button and instead of sending a PM made a reply post. What I get for surfing here while tired.

But, unfortunately it's out in the open, so what's done is done. But I stand by it. I have yet in 10+ years of posting here seen you actually take evidence shown to you and update your position on anything political, so I'm not holding my breath.

well if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I guess we can all interpret what was said, filtering it through our own personal bias.

Me, considering the source (and the destination), I don't see how you can not take that as a passive-aggressive threat.

That all depends on whether you're a liberal shill or a conservative nutjob, I suppose.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Obviously tone is hard to understand from email, and we don't know the relationship these two have, but based on Woodward's reply I'm having a really hard time believing his claim of being threatened. His response is NOT how you reply when you feel threatened.

You mean it's not how *you* would reply. You just said you don't know either of these men, how they would react, or the nature of their relationship, how can you possibly know he would NOT react that way?

Did you actually read his reply?



Unless you are a pathological liar, this is not how anyone, regardless of knowing them or not responds when they feel threatened.

And you have? You're still the same lefty, cool-aid drinking, lib/dem cheerleader, elitist prick that joined 10+ years ago. You've been shown truth, fact and logic a multitude of times and still tow the party line. What a stinkin hypocrite you are. In fact, I remember you saying a number of years back that you had "faith" that if shown truth and fact, that any reasonable person would accept them. I guess that never meant you huh?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Actually I've changed my opinions on a number of topics over the years, some from posters here.

This is asinine

A) RD, Obama is moving the goalposts. The sequester is the result of a deal not being reached, and it cuts everything. Now, in trying to reach a deal to alleviate it, saying that revenue needs to be a part of it is, indeed, moving the goalposts. Essentially what he's saying is "the only way to reach a deal is to give me what I want." Never mind that he got some tax increases in January anyhow. The fact remains that if he wants to avoid sequestration, the "balanced approach" is essentially saying "either agree to what I want, or sequestration is your fault."

B) The "threat" is laughable. I can say this: "Give me your keys, you're too drunk to drive home" and Talya or DFK! or RD or Aizle or Nitefox can say "**** you, I'm fine." If I respond with "I think you're going to regret that" is that a threat?
No. It's not, cute remarks about kneecaps notwithstanding.

C) It is also asinine to complain that because of people's past agreement or disagreement with Woodward, that they therefore are hypocritical to agree or disagree with him now. Statements and positions should be evaluated based on what's said, not who said it, and certainly not based on what they wrote about the previous administration.

Dumbest

Argument

Ever

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

On what? Your favorite color? I'm not going to play the "I've grown more than you!" game, as I've changed opinions on things an softened my stance on others as well...it's pointless and stupid. You have your blind spot and predisposition to many, many things just like I do. The thing is Aizle, I don't try to come off like I'm better than you or that much different and I actually admit to it. We are basically the same, just on opposite ends.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Somehow I cannot bring myself to give a crap. Wrong, right do we really care anymore? Or do we just post these things to get a reaction from each other

Sent from my SpringBoard using Tapatalk 2

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

To me, "moving the goalposts" means changing the established criteria for a given result. In this case, there aren't really any established criteria for reaching a deal because negotiations to replace the sequester are separate from the negotiations that created it. If you and I enter into a contract, and we both agree that we want to replace that contract with a new one, we are, by definition, scrapping the original agreement and starting fresh.

Further, even if we accept the view that the negotiations to replace the sequester are somehow constrained by the negotiations that originally created it, Obama's position now is the same as it was then - he wants revenues to be part of the debt reduction plan - so again, he's not changing his criteria for agreement; he's reiterating them.

And if you think the fact that Obama agreed to forego revenues in the sequestration deal means he has forever and for always conceded that point and he's "moving the goalposts" by re-opening it in negotiations over a new deal, then the Republicans would also be "moving the goalposts" by re-opening the defense spending cuts that they agreed to in the sequestration deal. In fact, by that logic, every single way in which a new deal differs from an old deal would be "moving the goal posts", which basically renders the expression so overbroad as to be meaningless.

We're going to negotiate a deal, RD. We've come to this point because we haven't reached one before.

You stand firm and insist on the same terms you've been offering for over a year, the terms which we've rejected over and over again (while making concessions on our side) in the meantime. We've triggered multiple points of penalty due to our inability to meet multiple deadlines to reach a deal.

Now that the latest deadline has passed, and the newest round of consequences kicks in, you come back with the same terms, and then insist to the angry public that it's our fault we have to live with these consequences because we are rejecting your middle-ground offer.

What do you call that?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The Republican approach to negotiation?

Lol. I'll call it a miscarriage of the responsibilities of the fourth estate.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

More seriously, I do think that characterization applies at least as well to the Republicans as to the Democrats on this, but that's neither here nor there. One could call that approach stubborn, intransigent, unyielding, bad faith negotiation, hardball tactics or...principled opposition. Depends on whether you think no deal is better or worse than a deal on the other side's terms. My point isn't that Obama's approach is correct (though I think it is); my point is simply that the expression "moving the goalposts" doesn't apply.

As for the fourth estate, no argument here. The press coverage of all things political these days is terrible.

I don't think you understand "deal".

_________________

What concessions has the wh made in your opinion? Honestly curious. The house has given tax increases when they wanted none, but I font feel the white house has done the same

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Without context, I would agree with you.

After being yelled at for 30 minutes, I'd say the context had been defined. A liberal shill might disagree with me, but I'm thinking, were it me who was on the receiving end of the tirade I'd see those words as a threat to my career, though not a physical threat to me personally.

A conservative nut job would probably see it as a physical, personal, type threat.

As for the sequester, screw 'em all. The score as I see it is still in their favor. Given that the percentage I lost this year is greater than the percentage they lost, they have no cause to *****.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Technically it's an Appeal to Emotion fallacy and an Ipse dixit (or Bare Assertion) fallacy. Tacticus being used in the real world around this debate include the Argumentum ad nauseum fallacy and the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

It is not, technically, "Moving the Goalposts," from a rhetorical perspective.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine