Our argument in a nutshell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

[Bailey Guns]

Rucker, that's a ridiculous question. Have you seen anyone here defending the IRS actions as "fair" or appropriate? Have you heard anyone even from the gov't defending what happened? I haven't. I've heard a lot of backpedaling and passing the buck. The Obama administration can't condemn it in harsh enough terms. No. It wasn't "fair". It was probably criminal and should be treated as such.

[Ronin13]

Another good time economically... Clinton... Why..... Split government. Both sides had to / and did work with each other.

Bullshit. I have to pull out that flag right here right now... Did you learn that in a public school (age dependent)? Because it's a lie. Clinton presided over a good economy because of a few factors no one gives any credence to because that's the way the liberal MSM and school system plays the game. Factor 1- Reagan. Clinton rode those coat tails after the full effect of Reaganomics and the Reagan era tax cuts and spending cuts settled in. Factor 2- Congress. Clinton wanted to send spending through the roof (like our current guy), but due to a mostly Republican and very fiscally conservative Congress, he was held at bay and the economy was able to go up, up and away. Of course, this led to lax banking regulations, Fannie and Freddie and that led to a huge problem later down the road (around 7-9 years down the road no less- and look who gets the blame, Mr. Bush).

In terms of fairness, to answer your other point:
There are only a few things you're guaranteed as an American- Life, liberty, PURSUIT of happiness. You aren't promised happiness, just the pursuit of it. You get fair and equal treatment under the law. That's it. You are not promised a "fair" or even equal wage, but that's the double edged sword of freedom. Not getting paid the same as your neighbor? You're free to quit your job and get a better paying one, you're free to work harder and get a raise, but you're not entitled to the same pay just because you live in the same neighborhood and live in comparable houses. Don't like it? Want fairness like that? Cuba, China, there are some Communist nations out there where they operate like that, but here, we have a- mostly- free market, capitalist society. Now, I better not see Hound at an Occupy Denver rally with a sign that says "Capitalism=Bad."

[Aloha_Shooter]

No shit sherlock, ya think? My thread was after that one, and there was one before that, which we found and also merged. How many threads do you think we merge daily due to reposts? Congratulations, you're right, I should have taken the extra time to research the first thread, and revised my thread and the link I was given to reflect the first thread. Yup, that would have been well worth it. You get a cookie, and to get to feel way better about yourself for discovering and repeatedly pointing out my error.

Let me apologize for giving you the impression that I was really criticizing your merger, saying you made a mistake or trying annoy a moderator. My original intent was really to poke fun at the hypersensitivity I've seen lately on "reposts" -- just reacted too fast to the "look at the date" comment.

Again, my apologies.

[Rucker61]

Rucker, that's a ridiculous question. Have you seen anyone here defending the IRS actions as "fair" or appropriate? Have you heard anyone even from the gov't defending what happened? I haven't. I've heard a lot of backpedaling and passing the buck. The Obama administration can't condemn it in harsh enough terms. No. It wasn't "fair". It was probably criminal and should be treated as such.

I'd love to agree with you, but I can't figure out if you like fair or not.

[Bailey Guns]

Well you define "fair" for me and I'll tell you if you like it or not.

[Rucker61]

Well you define "fair" for me and I'll tell you if you like it or not.

It's not a word that's easily defined, but you've hit on the missing ingredient of every back-and-forth discussion here: accepted definition of terms. In my mathematics studies, when creating a cogent, logical argument, the first step is to define all terms that will be used, so that the reader can't understand how they are used in the basis of your argument. It's accepted that the denitions so presented may be only accepted in the context of the argument and are not necessarily universal. Let's take the words "fair" and "fairness" used here, and because you're thick skinned, I'll pick on you. First you sarvastically answer Hound with "It's all about fair", presumably implying that you think that "fair", not yet defined by explanation or context, is not a desirable trait. You follow with a paraphrased statement that "fairness of opportunity is good" but "fairness of outcome" is bad, and then (again paraphrasing) "...not fair, and likely should be criminally prosecuted". In a few short posts you've gone from Fair: bad, good, bad, good.

Just look at the trouble we had defining conservative/liberal. I'd say that the statement "Being a Liberal is bad" would have near 100% acceptance here. The statement "Having any Liberal positions is bad" would be less likely to have the same level of acclaim, given the opinions posted here on gay marriage and legalized marijuana. I'm not sure what percentage acceptance we'd get on "having x percent Liberal opinions makes you a Liberal". I don't think it's definable in general, but only in context. Anyone here may certainly agree or disagree with that statement, should we populate the variable, and no one would be right or wrong.

[Bailey Guns]

And I think you probably know me well enough from other conversations to know which definitions of "fair" I'd probably be OK with and which I wouldn't.

[Rucker61]

And I think you probably know me well enough from other conversations to know which definitions of "fair" I'd probably be OK with and which I wouldn't.

Indeed I do, but does Hound?

[Ronin13]

Indeed I do, but does Hound?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or in your case a world-class mathematician) to figure out:
I'll break it down, Barney style for ya-
1) "fairness of opportunity is good" everyone gets a fair shot at opportunity, meaning we all have the same opportunities, ground down to the skin and bones of it- you're in America, you have the chance to do just about whatever you want... next point though,
2) "fairness of outcome" - to mean that while we have a shot at it, we're not guaranteed success with that opportunity. Some win, some lose, the only guarantee is your attempt, not the outcome of that attempt.
3) then there's fair treatment under the law- we all have these things called "rights", we're born with them. We have a right to face our accuser, we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers, and we have a right to not receive strange and unusual punishment. Thus it's only "fair" that we are all subject to the same justice system (now this is a little cloudy since there are several cases where this is not quite accurate, but on paper that's how it's supposed to work).
I had no problem understanding Bailey, and I think it's not too presumptuous to give Hound the benefit of the doubt and assume that he understands the point as well. Fair opportunity and fair, in the Obama sense of the word, are two very different things.

[Rucker61]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or in your case a world-class mathematician) to figure out:
I'll break it down, Barney style for ya- 1) "fairness of opportunity is good" everyone gets a fair shot at opportunity, meaning we all have the same opportunities, ground down to the skin and bones of it- you're in America, you have the chance to do just about whatever you want... next point though,
2) "fairness of outcome" - to mean that while we have a shot at it, we're not guaranteed success with that opportunity. Some win, some lose, the only guarantee is your attempt, not the outcome of that attempt.
3) then there's fair treatment under the law- we all have these things called "rights", we're born with them. We have a right to face our accuser, we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers, and we have a right to not receive strange and unusual punishment. Thus it's only "fair" that we are all subject to the same justice system (now this is a little cloudy since there are several cases where this is not quite accurate, but on paper that's how it's supposed to work).
I had no problem understanding Bailey, and I think it's not too presumptuous to give Hound the benefit of the doubt and assume that he understands the point as well. Fair opportunity and fair, in the Obama sense of the word, are two very different things.

When I say "fair", what do you think I mean?