According to some
sources, Democratic Party bosses are telling party spokesmen to avoid at all costs discussing the details of the health care bill. Here are a few passages from the memo:
We cannot emphasize enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and the number of Americans covered. ... These anti-reform extremists are making a last-ditch effort to derail reform. Do not give them ground by debating details.
Second, most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a "doc fix." Some Republicans have repeated CBO's November 18 letter that says "the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified ... to avoid reduction in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress." The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality. So, again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. ...
As most health staff knows, Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians support for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest it complicate the last critical push to health care reform.
Powerline blog reacts with humor to the latest revelation of Democrat duplicity:
Knowing whether the healthcare bill merits support is actually easy. If the proponents of X tell you not to be concerned with the details of X, and not to be concerned about the process used to bring about X, then you should oppose X.
It doesn't matter what X is or who the proponents are. If this is what they are telling you, you would be a fool to do what they want. And everyone over the age of ten knows this.
In recent hours, Democrats came out
claiming that the memos are fake. Indeed, how can anyone not trust the liberals?! Well, I suggest a simple and effective approach for our liberal brothers and sisters to prove that this memo is fake - start debating the details of the Obamacare bill. Because if they keep repeating like zombies the talking points about 30 million uninsured and deficit reduction - then surely it's obvious to anyone that memo is accurate.
8 comments:
Of coarse they don't want to debate the specifics, they no they have no good defense.
In recent hours, Democrats came out claiming that the memos are fake.
Well, it must be time for some evidence to resolve the origins of this memo. Since it is impossible to provide evidence that something is fake, the parties that obtained the memo, and are trying to use it to their benefit, need to step forward and validate the origins and authenticity of the document.
I believe this was that standard of proof demanded by the GOP during the questions surrounding documents that discussed President Bushes military career (CBS reporting).
Your overall premise that anyone should be outraged by a suspiciously sourced document prior to understanding its origins is not an act of critical thinking. A persons inability to understand this line of reasoning and universally agree to it is trying to use illogic and untruthfulness to pull the wool over someones eyes. In general, they would not be trustworthy.
This question is not partisan, nor a matter of policy, but simply the ability to think.
Snarky replies to this discussion point would be another example of adherence to political ideology over common sense. That said, it wouldn't surprise me that someone will take political exception to a discussion of what evidence is valid, and what should be trusted.
Reasonable people can disagree, unreasonable people can argue.
Ahm... Let me start with your main premise: "Since it is impossible to provide evidence that something is fake..."
Ironically, republicans showed that it was indeed possible to prove that the documents shown by CBS were fakes. So, when your entire line of reasoning is built on a fallacy, the rest of your arguments can be easily dismissed. This is quite obvious, btw.
Secondly, the liberals can easily prove that this memo is not their modus operandi by actually debating the details of the bill, instead of sticking to a few talking points. Just today, a democrat on Fox News claimed that this bill would save money for the taxpayers, while cutting the number of uninsured - which is surely untrue because the taxpayers will be forced to pay more money, not less. Some democrats claim that the bill will cut deficits without explaining that this claim is conditional - and assumes drastic cuts to Medicare and ignores increases in state funding among other things.
Barry Obama also claimed that no one would lose his insurance, that premiums will go down, and medical costs will be reduced, while Medicare will be strengthened.
Of course, all of these claims are in solid agreement with the letter and spirit of the memo shown by republicans.
And yet, some people claim that this memo has no connection to the Democratic Party. Surely only partisans and/or people of very low intelligence could agree with such claims. Which one are you?
Being a "factual" person; I admit I got confused and incorrectly extrapolated "You Can't Prove a Negative" into it is impossible to provide evidence that something is fake.
I omitted one word and should have said:
"Since it is impossible to always provide evidence that something is fake".
However, I remain confident that this trivial mistake does not invalidate the logic path I laid out. To recap, in the CBS story, it would have been up to CBS, who introduced the docs, to prove they were legitimate (BTW, not being able to prove something legitimate is not the same as that thing being illegitimate.)
In this case, if the GOP would like to prove their claim that this doc is indeed from the Democrats, then it is incumbent on them to provide such proof to support their claim. Lacking proof, the doc remains in question; unvalidated. I'm assuming you are in favor of claims backed with evidence, rather than statements that may have no more substance than obvious propaganda.
In reading the reasoning regarding the part about actually debating the details of the bill, instead of sticking to a few talking points, the samples provided seem like the conversation that has been around for weeks and months. Are you saying your examples are new commentary you've found from the Dems?
Furthermore, my discussion has not been partisan; I've not taken a position on policy here, or attempted to persuade anyone that being a Democrat or liberal is a sign of being in the right. My concern here is only with being able to provide a logically consistent argument that doesn't incorporate fallacies or faulty thinking. That you have included tongue-in-cheek pejorative commentary on the trustworthiness of liberals, as well as casting them as "zombies" indicates partisan behavior, IMO.
If you need more evidence of your obvious partisanship:
* "Barry" in place of the Presidents actual name
* claiming those who disagree with you on the policy aspects of the doc are "people of very low intelligence"
I suggest you don't need to worry about my intelligence or political leanings; I think that your credibility is at stake in your inability to demonstrate the capability to understand what it takes to present and hold a position, including defending it against basic challenges, not on its content, but on its structure.
Best of luck.
So, Mr.factyouall, you are a player. You sure you want to play this game?
"Being a "factual" person; I admit I got confused and incorrectly extrapolated "You Can't Prove a Negative" into it is impossible to provide evidence that something is fake."
Let me put this slightly differently. You started your argument with a fallacy. You used an illustration that was factually wrong. And when I pointed this out to you - you conceded that you were wrong - and this somehow proves your superiority. That's funny.
BTW, had you read the link you provided, you would have know that the claim "you cannot prove the negative" is also wrong.
>I omitted one word and should have said: "Since it is impossible to always provide evidence that something is fake".
In other words, sometime you can prove it, and sometimes you cannot. Hm. There's a major statement, clarifying everything. BTW, have you gone through the trouble of testing whether the case of the DNC memo is one where you can or cannot prove that it's fake? I did not see it.
"However, I remain confident that this trivial mistake does not invalidate the logic path I laid out."
You based your entire argument on a fallacy, tried to support it with example which proved the opposite - but you are confident that this in no way "invalidates the logic path you laid out." Well done, comrade.
"To recap, in the CBS story, it would have been up to CBS, who introduced the docs, to prove they were legitimate (BTW, not being able to prove something legitimate is not the same as that thing being illegitimate.)"
Surely you remember that the scandal began when the civil rights activists noted that the font of the letter was very suspicious - the chances of a normal tape writer decades ago to have modern day font were slim to negligible. In other words, the republicans raised considerable doubt in the authenticity of the documents based on factual evidence - which is surely not the case here. I wonder why...
"In this case, if the GOP would like to prove their claim that this doc is indeed from the Democrats, then it is incumbent on them to provide such proof to support their claim."
All right. So let me ask you - what would constitute proof to you?
"Lacking proof, the doc remains in question; unvalidated."
Sure it remains in question. So what? Some people believe it was written by dems, some don't. It's not like the dems would give all their computers for testing whether the document was done on their computers.
"I'm assuming you are in favor of claims backed with evidence, rather than statements that may have no more substance than obvious propaganda."
And I explained that Democratic aversion to discuss the intricacies of the bill is an indirect evidence that the memo is correct. Do you have any contrary evidence, any examples of any high-level dems discussing the details of the bill?
"In reading the reasoning regarding the part about actually debating the details of the bill, instead of sticking to a few talking points, the samples provided seem like the conversation that has been around for weeks and months. Are you saying your examples are new commentary you've found from the Dems?"
So, you are claiming that Dems inherently won't discuss the details of the bill - which makes the memo completely useless?
"Furthermore, my discussion has not been partisan; I've not taken a position on policy here, or attempted to persuade anyone that being a Democrat or liberal is a sign of being in the right."
And that proves you are not a liberal? That proves you do not support the passage of the bill? all right, let me ask you - would you have voted Yes on this bill if you were a congress-person?
"My concern here is only with being able to provide a logically consistent argument that doesn't incorporate fallacies or faulty thinking."
Which is exactly why you started discussion with a fallacy, and tried to illustrate it with an example which was clearly incorrect. Yap, you are one concerned individual.
"That you have included tongue-in-cheek pejorative commentary on the trustworthiness of liberals, as well as casting them as "zombies" indicates partisan behavior, IMO."
No, really? Are you saying I have a strong opinion on the subject? Seriously? You are a genius! How did you achieve such an insight into my psyche? I thought I was hiding my views deep inside - and now you let everyone know my secret. Wow!
>If you need more evidence of your obvious partisanship:
* "Barry" in place of the Presidents actual name
* claiming those who disagree with you on the policy aspects of the doc are "people of very low intelligence"
Dude, I am heartbroken. You were able to show to the entire world that I have strong opinions on the politics. Well, mister, you have an unparalleled ability to notice the obvious.
"I suggest you don't need to worry about my intelligence or political leanings;"
What makes you think I am worried? Why would your intelligence worry me? Trust me, there is no reason in the world to make me worried about that. Same goes for your political leanings.
"I think that your credibility is at stake in your inability to demonstrate the capability to understand what it takes to present and hold a position, including defending it against basic challenges, not on its content, but on its structure."
credibility, inability, capability - so many ilities in one sentence. And this is coming from a person who bases his entire argument on a fallacy, then tries to illustrate it with an example, which clearly shows the opposite of what you are trying to prove. I guess you got more ilities than I got - but that's obviously not enough in this case.
"Best of luck."
No, best of luck to you, comrade. You truly need it.
H-A,
I accept that the original comment, as stated, had a problem (fallacy, as you said), which I clearly acknowledged. Once I corrected the problem, the fallacy was removed. You may not like the resulting statement, but until you can prove it also is a fallacy, it will stand.
BTW, superiority, as you referenced, is not something I mentioned; this is part of your opinion. As far as my link, the phrase it contains that is the basis for my position is: On the other hand, it is in theory impossible to prove beyond question that "No green swans exist" (or more generally any statement of the form "No X exists").
Regarding the CBS docs, for the sake of argument (and not to get sidetracked), they were "invalidated" (proven false) by republicans (sic). However, from a logical perspective, a set of docs could have been so perfectly created that they could not have been invalidated (shown to be anything other than accurate evidence). Any person could still be skeptical and request proof from the presenter of the docs; if there was no outside evidence they could remain skeptical.
I use this example to highlight that the burden of proof is on those who would try to present something for their own gain, and that dissenters are not responsible for proving them wrong (not that they shouldn't try). As applied to the current talking point docs, the republicans (sic) have the burden of proof. And as you asked of me, what would constitute proof , I answer it is not up to skeptics to provide the parameters of proof. Those who have the docs need to respond with whatever evidence they have that supports their position.
I hope the notion of my argument based on a fallacy is no longer relevant, having been corrected.
FYA
H-A, (continued)
I use this example to highlight that the burden of proof is on those who would try to present something for their own gain, and that dissenters are not responsible for proving them wrong (not that they shouldn't try). As applied to the current talking point docs, the republicans (sic) have the burden of proof. And as you asked of me, what would constitute proof , I answer it is not up to skeptics to provide the parameters of proof. Those who have the docs need to respond with whatever evidence they have that supports their position.
As you said: Sure it remains in question. So what? Some people believe it was written by dems, some don't; well, its good to find some agreement. IMO, unless there is evidence to change the landscape, we are left to "agree to disagree". Whatever HCR details are or are not discussed (by either side) are not proof of anything, they are merely coincidental.
BTW, it seems that there would be a lot of places and sources that would need examining to determine if or if not HCR details were ever discussed. My belief is that congressional meetings did indeed include such details. However, I'm open to any evidence that would show that is not the case. Since this is your assertion, can you prove your (negative) statement?
As an aside, perhaps we could agree that in public, all politicians will tend to present a positive public face as they speak, and not focus on legislative language used internally. This is often a problem.
My comments on partisanship on your behalf were only intended as a counterpoint to your claim that I was partisan. I was comparing and contrasting your language to mine, to show that I had not used anything similar to what I mentioned you used.
As to my position, and my vote if I had one? Well, all I can say is I've voted for and against the major parties historically, and my interest here is not on passage, but on tactics which are or or not believable. Persuasion by false argument is undermining our political process and turning us into subservient serfs who tend to do the bidding of those with the loudest voice, often against their own best interests. Hence my bent on facts.
FYA
p.s.
I'm having trouble with the thread comments below we've made; aren't your responses somehow inconsistent?
H-A:
Surely only partisans and/or people of very low intelligence could agree with such claims. Which one are you?
FYA:
I suggest you don't need to worry about my intelligence or political leanings;
H-A:
What makes you think I am worried? Why would your intelligence worry me? Trust me, there is no reason in the world to make me worried about that. Same goes for your political leanings.
Post a Comment