Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 4:09 AM Location: D-brane
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: state of the union!
CET wrote:
munky99999 wrote:
Ya so I got a little bored and not interested in reading atm. So I'm watching the silly state of the union.
So far he's cutting the budget and balancing it a bit. Sounds good.
That's what Repugnicans say, but that's not what they do, especially old dubya there. That guy spends like a drunk sailor on liberty in Bangkok.
Quote:
When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500 billions per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that.
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 12844 Local time: 1:09 AM Location: SoCal, USA
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject:
This article is squarely placing blame on tax cuts, which is hyperbole at best. The tax cuts were a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that Bush has never seen a spending bill he didn't like, not to mention the Iraq war. _________________ Namaste,
CET
Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 4:09 AM Location: D-brane
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:14 am Post subject:
CET wrote:
This article is squarely placing blame on tax cuts, which is hyperbole at best. The tax cuts were a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that Bush has never seen a spending bill he didn't like, not to mention the Iraq war.
The article is pretty clear: tax cuts without spending cuts leads to an increase in national debt.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004 Posts: 7247 Local time: 1:09 AM Location: Next door.
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject:
munky99999 wrote:
Ok let me try this again. I know this will be very hard for you to address because you are so detached from reality....
I give you an explanation of EXACTLY what an analogy is. Copy/paste. I than also copy/paste the authoritative example of an analogy. This is just fact. Here the analogy is again.
A street light is like a star. Both provide light at night, both are in predictable locations, both are overhead, and both serve no function in the daytime.
You respond with.
Quote:
In fact, the above is not even a complete analogy.
and that's it..
Yes. That's all there is to it, because posting a definition of "analogy", and then a realy shitty example of an analogy...
DOES NOT MAKE *YOUR* ABORTION/EARMARK ANALOGY LESS FALSE.
I know what an analogy is munky, and your analogy was false.
This street lamp/star shit doesn't even enter into it.
Quote:
you're so detached from reality you think your opinion overrides factual authoritative things.
No, your just so inept that you can't figure out why posting a definition of "analogy" is not a refutation of my criticism of your original analogy. Your not correct by default.
Quote:
Your opinion that the analogy is not an analogy essentially is entirely uninformed and ignorant. I have no reason to debate such ignorance.
Educate yourself on what an analogy actually is and than get in touch with reality. Than come make statements against me.
Quote:
I showed how it was false.
You only showed it to be false to other people who are not attached to reality in any way. People who actually know what an analogy is can easily see my analogy was perfectly fine.
No it was false. EARMARKS are not like ABORTIONS in any way. Your analogy was false because you have to totally ignore the striking differences between EARMARKS and abortions in order to make it work. It's equally useless to redefine a thing into some hypothetical parody of it's self in order to make it an actual analogue of another thing. IE: Abortions have to become pre-existing federal appropriations which will be used by a given federal agency whether they are redistributed according to the preference of an elected representative or NOT... in order to be *like* EARMARKS. This is as ludicrious as it is false, therefor your analogy is false.
Now, REFUTE THAT. Do it here and now, or shut the fuck up.
Your insults, bitching, and evading will not distract anyone. _________________ "-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4671 Local time: 4:09 AM Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject:
Ok so let me basically explain your argument...
[cheap]
Your analogy is false. because of nanananan
Prove it is a valid analogy!
Your definition of wat an analogy doesnt count. because it doesnt count. so nanaanan
[/tardation]
Quote:
No it was false. EARMARKS are not like ABORTIONS in any way.
Ok so tell me...
Ron paul is against earmarks is he not? he wishes to make them end does he not? Obviously this is true.
Other people are against abortions... they wish to make them end do they not? obviously this is true.
I guess by my providing just this one link basically refutes your point.
Quote:
Your analogy was false because you have to totally ignore the striking differences between EARMARKS and abortions in order to make it work.
again your ignorance is showing again. analogies dont die because things are so different... streetlights and stars are very very different. The 1 similiarity is all it takes.
Ya anyway I dont have to refute you. The burden of proof is on you to show how the analogy was false.
Quote:
Your not correct by default.
no... that is what my analogy is for. That analogy made me correct. You than can go to the definition of analogy or wat have you. You clearly cant do this.
The fact is. I was comparing the similarity between the 2. Which both certainly hold. Therefore the analogy is valid and you are incorrectly classifying my analogy false. _________________ A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004 Posts: 7247 Local time: 1:09 AM Location: Next door.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:24 am Post subject:
munky99999 wrote:
Ok so let me basically explain your argument...
[cheap]
Your analogy is false. because of nanananan
Prove it is a valid analogy!
Your definition of wat an analogy doesnt count. because it doesnt count. so nanaanan
[/tardation]
No that wasn't my response. Grow up.
Your analogy was false. I explained why.
Quote:
Quote:
No it was false. EARMARKS are not like ABORTIONS in any way.
Ok so tell me...
Ron paul is against earmarks is he not?
No, he is against the way in which the executive branch disposes of them. IOW, he is against what he considers excessive government spending, and the way in which this spending is allocated. He is NOT against acting as a congressman should under the situation. He is not against returning funding back to the people who were taxed in the first place. It's his fucken job to do that. If he didn't do that, the money WOULD BE SPENT ANYWAY, and the people who had voted for him would not be represented.
Quote:
he wishes to make them end does he not?
No, he wishes excessive spending to end, and an end to the current federal role in this spending.
Whether earmarks are undemocratic or not is another debate, and if Ron Paul had his way, MUCH of the share that some federal departments have in the total tax revenue would be so reduced/eliminated that it would be a bit of a moot point WHERE exactly to spend all that money, as it wouldn't be there to begin with, as most of your share of it would be in YOUR pocket. (if you were an American)
Quote:
Obviously this is true.
Other people are against abortions... they wish to make them end do they not? obviously this is true.
Abortions are not like Earmarks. Not even remotely. If the only similarity you assert between Abortions and Earmarks is that Ron Paul wishes them to end, then your fucked, cuz in either case that's not an adequate way to describe his position.
You could just as easily say that Paul is a hypocrite because he doesn't support a FEDERAL ban on abortion, and yet he is anti-abortion. Bullshit swings both ways.
Quote:
I guess by my providing just this one link basically refutes your point.
No, but I could refute your argument with one link. At about 4:20, you get it from the horses mouth, which is a lot more useful than pulling it out of your own ass.
Your analogy was false because you have to totally ignore the striking differences between EARMARKS and abortions in order to make it work.
again your ignorance is showing again. analogies dont die because things are so different...
No, that's why they are called analogies. IOW "analogue".
A false analogy is one where there are no consistent similarities. IE, YOUR analogy.
At best your trying to pass a simile off as an analogy, but we are not engaging in poetry. This is debate. Or at least it would be if you pulled your fucken weight.
Quote:
Ya anyway I dont have to refute you. The burden of proof is on you to show how the analogy was false.
I already did that with my first post. beginning with your original one liner, and ending with this, how much time have you wasted trying to avoid directly addressing that post? _________________ "-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
