| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Raskolnikov
The Axe Murderer
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 1601
Local time: 5:54 PM
Location: Las Vegas
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: A chalange to josephpalazzo (Discussion Thread) |
  |
|
wtf lol
_________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, underwhich weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, for if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The future is not set in stone. The future is what you make it. So make it a good one!"
-Dr. Emmett Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 20923
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ofcoarse analogies can be false...
The fallacy...
I've personally had cheap challenge my analogy as false but couldn't for a remote second establish it as such.
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. As analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy however it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
Which is actually EXACTLY what occured between me and cheap... It certainly doesnt seem to be the same when JOE says "An analogy can be badly constructed or irrelevant to a discussion, or may have other attributes, BUT NOT A FALSE ATTRIBUTE."
For some reason the analogy that is being challenged I cant seem to find in the post... and the nearest post to it is very large and colourful that I cant really look at.
but right near the bottom of the one post....
| Quote: | | Munky's analogy was false. Do you know what a false analogy is? Are you reading the word "false" and getting it's usage confused? |
That's from Libertarian Socialism thread... a thread I never touched. So WHAT THE FUCK...
I even went and found the false analogy thing where you basically falsely called false analogy and eventually discounted what an actual analogy is.
The first time false analogy was called.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Lets say your a person who is constantly trying to end abortions... you vote to make abortion illegal all the time... than you turn around and get an abortion. Just because they are available... |
You can't be EARMARKED for an abortion though. It doesn't work that way. (at least not outside of China) |
Which is 100% like the
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because",
You were essentially arguing that...
Well, but that's different because you cant be earmarked for an abortion.
The difference isnt a way of discovering if the analogy is false or not.
Is the analogy itself an analogy at all? Which mine WAS. You than discuss if the considered comparisons are valid or questionable.
For example from wiki
The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator.
The first statement that the universe is intricate like a watch is not a valid statement. A watch is nowhere near as intricate as a watch. A watch isn't intricate at all really. Nobody on earth knows anything more than 1% of the universe... a watch on the otherhand is 100% understood.
Which makes it a false analogy. It is an analogy but it is false.
My analogy is still valid.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7021
Local time: 4:54 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes. Earmarks are like abortions. Another well thought out munkyism.
What's next? Tax refunds are like charitable donations?
_________________
"-- 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickcopeland648
The Phantom Teabagger
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 2589
Local time: 12:54 AM
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | Ah yes. Earmarks are like abortions. Another well thought out munkyism.
What's next? Tax refunds are like charitable donations? |
Well, except earmarks-- as opposed to those dried pig ear doggie toys-- aren't aren't as tasty...
So where's the challenege? Is Joe a he-man.ist or a pussy.ist?
_________________
“I think it’s also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
-- George W. Bush on Clinton's involvement in Kosovo, 1999
"Syphilis is the algebra of infection."
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
Can't... fight... any... longer... must.. help.. bunny.. achieve.. global.. domination.. All.. hail... bunny...
-------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | Ah yes. Earmarks are like abortions. Another well thought out munkyism.
What's next? Tax refunds are like charitable donations? |
Please continue filling
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. As analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy however it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
you do it quite well.
Earmarks are not like abortions... that wat analogies are for. You're deficient so you cant realize this.
But when a politician opposes both of those... they are the same. In that they are opposed. That's the same... Now if the pro-lifer gets an abortion... that's hypocritical. The same thing goes for earmarks. If you oppose earmarks... dont use them. It is entirely hypocritical to do so otherwise. Even then... if he only got a couple...and it was nothing big or anything... there was a special big need for the earmark... then maybe... but he's like the biggest earmark person...
Meh it doesn't matter... Ron Paul is an old senile guy who isnt popular at all... He's 1 step into the old timers home.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7021
Local time: 4:54 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Earmarks are not like abortions... that wat analogies are for. You're deficient so you cant realize this. |
Uh, NO, your just super ignorant. Something has to be LIKE another thing, in order for it to be an ANALOG of said other thing.
Ever wonder why they call it "analog sound"?
| Quote: | | For the purposes of the analogy however it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not. |
Uh, yeah? So how are earmarks like abortions in a way which makes Ron Paul a hypocrite??? The money was already taxed and going to federal departments. It would have been spent anyway. Ron Paul could not do a thing about it.
I recall explaining this to you.
_________________
"-- 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | For the purposes of the analogy however it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not. |
Uh, yeah? So how are earmarks like abortions in a way which makes Ron Paul a hypocrite?
You can talk ABOUT analogies until you turn blue. It won't make a specific false analogy that you made, less false. |
I LOVE how you always refuse to actually address anything I've said. You are so in love with ron paul and that group... you cant admit it was a valid analogy. Just as bush supporters cant admit to anything Bush has ever did. I'm sorry your rep turned out to be hypocritical and you're to embarrassed to admit it.
I've thoroughly explained in detail why he is a hypocrite... you cant address what I said... you simply respond like you are here... a sentence of mine and then you repeat your denial. I honestly don't care.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jeese you editted your post a couple times.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | For the purposes of the analogy however it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not. |
Uh, yeah? So how are earmarks like abortions in a way which makes Ron Paul a hypocrite??? The money was already taxed and going to federal departments. It would have been spent anyway. Ron Paul could not do a thing about it.
I recall explaining this to you. |
Yes you did... it doesn't matter. If he disagrees with earmarks... and thinks they shouldnt exist... he shouldnt be using them. It doesn't make a single bit of difference if the money is being spent or not or by who. You think earmarks are bad and shouldn't exist... you shouldn't create them... and you most certainly shouldn't be creating the most.
| Quote: | Uh, NO, your just super ignorant. Something has to be LIKE another thing, in order for it to be an ANALOG of said other thing.
Ever wonder why they call it "analog sound"? |
Yes... I'm waiting for you to actually address my explanation as to which goes to the very basis of what an analogy is. Proving from the foundation that it was an analogy. You NEVER responded to that. You cant address that.
An analogy is drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect.
That comparison was that a Politician believes in abolishing them. That is the comparison. I then draw comparison that a pro-life politician who went out and got many abortions would be a hypocrite. Such that to make the conclusion that he is a hypocrite over his use of earmarks.
Furthermore...
It would have been spent anyway. Ron Paul could not do a thing about it.
Yes but it doesnt mean he needs to make earmarks. This again is an analog to getting many abortions just because they are available. AS Ron Paul is using earmarks just because they are available.
Oh and ofcoarse I dont expect you to actually address any of these points. You will continue to address a single sentence and ignore these points. You will also just repeat that it's a false analogy without actually having proven that it is false. Afterall if it is false you can prove it so.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7021
Local time: 4:54 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: |
I LOVE how you always refuse to actually address anything I've said. |
Well, a large amount of what you say is about something else, if it's not just you complaining about being asked to pull your own weight in an argument.
| munky99999 wrote: | | jeese you editted your post a couple times. |
Uhu? I accidentally hit the quote button instead of the edit button and double posted with a reply to myself too.
So what?
| Quote: | | Quote: | Uh, yeah? So how are earmarks like abortions in a way which makes Ron Paul a hypocrite??? The money was already taxed and going to federal departments. It would have been spent anyway. Ron Paul could not do a thing about it.
I recall explaining this to you. |
Yes you did... it doesn't matter. If he disagrees with earmarks... and thinks they shouldnt exist... he shouldnt be using them. |
I'll address that at the bottom of the post. (this a test to see if your actually reading any of this)
| Quote: | | It doesn't make a single bit of difference if the money is being spent or not or by who. You think earmarks are bad and shouldn't exist... you shouldn't create them... and you most certainly shouldn't be creating the most. |
(are you still reading? Keep reading.)
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Uh, NO, your just super ignorant. Something has to be LIKE another thing, in order for it to be an ANALOG of said other thing.
Ever wonder why they call it "analog sound"? |
Yes... I'm waiting for you to actually address my explanation as to which goes to the very basis of what an analogy is. Proving from the foundation that it was an analogy. |
Yes it was an analogy. A false one.
| Quote: | | You NEVER responded to that. You cant address that. |
It doesn't need to be addressed. It would be difficult for an analogy to be false without being an analogy in the FIRST PLACE. This is why it was bootless for you to spend paragraphs describing what analogies are. It's BESIDE the point.
"False analogy" does not mean "not an analogy".
| Quote: | An analogy is drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect.
That comparison was that a Politician believes in abolishing them. |
Does Paul actually want to ABOLISH either abortion, or earmarks? I've never heard of him taking a position like that.
| Quote: | | That is the comparison. I then draw comparison that a pro-life politician who went out and got many abortions would be a hypocrite. Such that to make the conclusion that he is a hypocrite over his use of earmarks. |
It was a bad comparison. The similarities don't support the premise. I'm going to lay it out for you again, point by point, and if you don't put in the effort to respond... I'll make fun of you.
1-Abortions are not federal appropriations, IOW abortions are not compulsory, nor do they become part of a collective *resource*, which is then redistributed.
2-Ron Paul objects to heavy taxation/government spending, and the power that the executive branch has over the process. In short he doesn't like how MUCH money is taken away, and the sway that the executive has over the decisions of redistribution, but he can't do much about it at the moment... Try to swap any of the above words with "abortion" and see if it still makes sense.
2-Ron Paul's job as an elected representative is NOT to take requests from people in his constituency to get some of there abortions back.
3-Participation in the redistribution of Abortions by congress is not required by the constitution.
| Quote: | Furthermore...
It would have been spent anyway. Ron Paul could not do a thing about it.
Yes but it doesnt mean he needs to make earmarks. |
It's his fucken JOB munkey.
| Quote: | | This again is an analog to getting many abortions just because they are available. AS Ron Paul is using earmarks just because they are available. |
See above.
| Quote: | | Oh and ofcoarse I dont expect you to actually address any of these points. You will continue to address a single sentence and ignore these points. You will also just repeat that it's a false analogy without actually having proven that it is false. Afterall if it is false you can prove it so. |
See WAY above, and read it all again.
_________________
"-- 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, a large amount of what you say is about something else, if it's not just you complaining about being asked to pull your own weight in an argument. |
Fine I'll start arguing against you like you do with me... declare everything in a post which is relevant to the subject to be "something else"
| Quote: | Uhu? I accidentally hit the quote button instead of the edit button and double posted with a reply to myself too.
So what?
|
Never saw doubles so sure sure.. doesnt change the fact that the first quote I made was completely destroy by you editting the post... so basically it makes it seem like I faked or made up the post.
| Quote: | | I'll address that at the bottom of the post. (this a test to see if your actually reading any of this) |
Then when I get to the bottom of the post... there's no answer.
| Quote: | | (are you still reading? Keep reading.) |
Omgz keeeeeep reading... still none of my points being addressed.
| Quote: | | Yes it was an analogy. A false one. |
Please prove that it was false. I have perfectly established how the analogy went.
| Quote: | | It doesn't need to be addressed. |
YEs it does. You however never address points. You just make blanket statements and conclusions of your own. This is how you argue...
Me: The war in Iraq is a bad one... but a good one because we are deposing bad people and taking bad people out of power.
You: No... there's no war in Iraq.
Me: What are you talking about? Would you prove that there's no war in Iraq?
You: You can't prove there's a war in Iraq.
Me: Here's loads and loads of evidence that there is indeed a war in Iraq.
You: No that's just red herrings I won't address any of that because it's something else.
| Quote: | | It would be difficult for an analogy to be false without being an analogy in the FIRST PLACE. |
Bahahahaa... god damn you're funny.
| Quote: | | This is why it was bootless for you to spend paragraphs describing what analogies are. It's BESIDE the point. |
Interesting... I'd never heard "bootless" ever used like that. Still Pretty funny about how you are basically contradicting yourself.
| Quote: | | "False analogy" does not mean "not an analogy". |
Yet you argued that it wasnt an analogy and that my examples for analogies were somehow incomplete.
| Quote: | Does Paul actually want to ABOLISH either abortion, or earmarks? I've never heard of him taking a position like that.
|
Ron Paul's position on abortion doesnt matter. It doesn't necessarily have to be ron paul who wants to end abortion. Any politician who wants to end abortions can be used... then hypothetically that person is going out and getting many abortions. As for Paul's position on abortion... he has voted constantly against embryonic stem cell stuff.. He repeatedly vote to make abortions banned.
And earmarks... he's well established as No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district. (Dec 2007)
If he has discovered his disingenuousness and hypocrisy and has changed his outward opinion to something where small amounts of earmarks are allowed... in that earmarks need to be reduced and not eliminated... it's probably because it's embarrassing for him.
| Quote: | | It was a bad comparison. The similarities don't support the premise. |
That's how analogies work. I know that's hard for you to understand.
| Quote: | | I'm going to lay it out for you again, point by point, and if you don't put in the effort to respond... I'll make fun of you. |
I'd want to make fun of me also... first time you ever actually address something and I ignore... no no I'll see what it says.
| Quote: | | 1-Abortions are not federal appropriations, IOW abortions are not compulsory, nor do they become part of a collective *resource*, which is then redistributed. |
Wow congratulations on fulfilling the Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because",
| Quote: | | 2-Ron Paul objects to heavy taxation/government spending, and the power that the executive branch has over the process. |
ALL actually was his position... but he was found out to be a hypocrite so he changed his position to this "reduce it" position.
| Quote: | | In short he doesn't like how MUCH money is taken away, and the sway that the executive has over the decisions of redistribution, but he can't do much about it at the moment... |
Yes but if he wants to reduce earmarks or eliminate them... perhaps he should stop being the one who creates so many.
| Quote: | | Try to swap any of the above words with "abortion" and see if it still makes sense. |
Differences dont make a single bit of difference. You are committing false fallacy. You cannot show an analogy to be false by showing how there are differences. If differences did that... analogies would be ALL false.
You have to look at the original comparison and show how that isn't valid.
| Quote: | | 2-Ron Paul's job as an elected representative is NOT to take requests from people in his constituency to get some of there abortions back. |
Yes lets keep the "differences" coming that have absolutely nothing to do with the original comparison.
| Quote: | | 3-Participation in the redistribution of Abortions by congress is not required by the constitution. |
Mmmm irrelevant differences.
| Quote: | | It's his fucken JOB munkey. |
So he is looking to eliminate his job?No it's not his job. He is there to address laws and such... introduce new laws about new things... manage things... pass bills and all that lovely stuff... EARMARKS are these stupid tools to essentially toss money at politicians so they will vote yes on the bill. That's why Ron Paul is so disingenuous. He gets earmarks on stuff he votes against... but he knows that it will pass. Thusly the earmark gets put there in hopes of getting his vote... but he still votes against.
Oh and ofcoarse I dont expect you to actually address any of these points. You will continue to address a single sentence and ignore these points. You will also just repeat that it's a false analogy without actually having proven that it is false. Afterall if it is false you can prove it so.
Look I have precognition.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7021
Local time: 4:54 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, a large amount of what you say is about something else, if it's not just you complaining about being asked to pull your own weight in an argument. |
Fine I'll start arguing against you like you do with me... declare everything in a post which is relevant to the subject to be "something else"
| Quote: | Uhu? I accidentally hit the quote button instead of the edit button and double posted with a reply to myself too.
So what?
|
Never saw doubles so sure sure.. doesnt change the fact that the first quote I made was completely destroy by you editting the post... so basically it makes it seem like I faked or made up the post. |
That's a good reason not to bring up EDITS, if there is not a time stamp to establish WHEN-- WHO-- posted WHAT.
What it makes you look like is a desperate bean counter. Even worse, the beans aren't even visible.
| Quote: | | Omgz keeeeeep reading... still none of my points being addressed. |
Well fuck you then. Let's skip to the end and take a look.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It's his fucken JOB munkey. |
So he is looking to eliminate his job?No it's not his job. He is there to address laws and such... introduce new laws about new things... manage things... pass bills |
Such as SPENDING bills.
| Quote: | | and all that lovely stuff... EARMARKS are these stupid tools to essentially toss money at politicians so they will vote yes on the bill. |
No, it's the reverse. Earmarks are "stupid tools" to toss money BACK at VOTERS who have asked for it, (and then they might vote for the same politicians again.)
| Quote: | | That's why Ron Paul is so disingenuous. |
No he just plays the game, as it's his job. He would like some of the rules to change, but until then he ain't gonna be doing his job if he doesn't address the wishes of the people who voted for him.
To put this into terms that you might understand: if there is some online multiplayer video game that has had multiple patches applied to it that YOU as a player consider unfair/wasteful to the resources that the players work to gain/and at times in violation of the original rules of the game, are you a HYPOCRIT for continuing to play, even though you started playing after many of these patches?
| Quote: | | He gets earmarks on stuff he votes against... but he knows that it will pass. Thusly the earmark gets put there in hopes of getting his vote... but he still votes against. |
An earmark is not the same as a spending bill. The later contains the former. The constitutionality, or the merritt of either are not necessarily related, and Paul is not responsible for the contents of the ENTIRE BILL, or what the executive does with it.
| Quote: | Oh and ofcoarse I dont expect you to actually address any of these points. You will continue to address a single sentence and ignore these points. You will also just repeat that it's a false analogy without actually having proven that it is false. Afterall if it is false you can prove it so.
Look I have precognition. |
You don't even have cognition enough to understand the things you reference in your own assertions.
_________________
"-- 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | That's a good reason not to bring up EDITS, if there is not a time stamp to establish WHEN-- WHO-- posted WHAT.
What it makes you look like is a desperate bean counter. Even worse, the beans aren't even visible. |
Sigh basics of reality dont connect with you much if ever.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Omgz keeeeeep reading... still none of my points being addressed. |
Well fuck you then. Let's skip to the end and take a look. |
You really didnt address any points in the reply and you really really hadnt made a single point yet in the post.
| Quote: | | Such as SPENDING bills. |
You apparently dont have knowledge about earmarks and such. Personally I oppose earmarks in a sense. Basically earmarks can be good and sometimes bad. From the examples I saw of Ron Paul's earmarks... such as money going to a private company to clear some sunken ship in harbour or something... that's a really bad earmark. It's something Ron Paul basically does all the time.
There are people who oppose earmarks because essentially the abuse that the american politicians have taken to. They now are angry because such a hypocrite came onto their beat.
| Quote: | | No, it's the reverse. Earmarks are "stupid tools" to toss money BACK at VOTERS who have asked for it, (and then they might vote for the same politicians again.) |
Seriously... go find some rusty scissors and cut your hands off. Have a friend help you.
| Quote: | | No he just plays the game, as it's his job. |
GW Bush and Hitler just played the game... it's their job.
| Quote: | | He would like some of the rules to change, but until then he ain't gonna be doing his job if he doesn't address the wishes of the people who voted for him. |
Doing something he opposes... yes makes sense to me...
| Quote: | | To put this into terms that you might understand: if there is some online multiplayer video game that has had multiple patches applied to it that YOU as a player consider unfair/wasteful to the resources that the players work to gain/and at times in violation of the original rules of the game, are you a HYPOCRIT for continuing to play, even though you started playing after many of these patches? |
I need an example to find out if this even a valid concept. Ive played many games... never seen this happening exactly... but I cant say its false just yet.
Lets for example give a valid analogy using online multiplayer games.
I start playing counterstrike. Some hacker comes to do their deal and destroy the game. I'm not admin I dont have the power to end this hacker... but I can start a vote to kick em. I do the vote and not enough people vote to kick. So the hacker stays. The hypocritical thing would be for me to start hacking also.
| Quote: | | An earmark is not the same as a spending bill. The later contains the former. The constitutionality, or the merritt of either are not necessarily related, and Paul is not responsible for the contents of the ENTIRE BILL, or what the executive does with it. |
Damn you're blind to ron paul.... Ron Paul is higher then caeser for you... Caeser can do no wrong. Ron Paul's neutral and wrong is right. At least to you.
Lets say I'm Congressman Munky for a second. Scary yes I know.
LEts say there's this bill which is going to pass no doubt... dems and retards both will approve this... but in some very odd reason I'm deluded enough to be a libertarian and I will be voting against this bill.
Now there's congressman Banana and he's an independent. He isnt sure which way he is going to go. So the executor approaches this banana and says... look we'll earmark $1 million for your brother's contracting business so they can build a shed. The congressman now is voting yes.
Now I oppose the entire thing. I think it's terrible. So I go earmark $15 million to get my best friend's house repainted. Ummm UHHH... not only are these fucktard earmarks... but he is voting against something which he is taking advantage of. It's saying no and yes at the same time.
Hell... the argument of "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending" isnt even remotely valid... spending 8 million $$$$ of tax money on "marketing of wild American shrimp"... fuck that... I'm so glad my representative is doing that kind of retarded shit... spending money to market something which the free market doesnt have interest in?
I think the objective federal guys would have spent that 8 million a little better then that? Perhaps they could have spent that 8 million$ on education? Feeding the poor?
What's even worse that he earmarked this money and then voted against it... How about earmark that 400 million$ and give that money back to the people it came from? Earmarks can go towards making people's taxes go away... why isnt he doing that and NOT being a hypocrite? Oh right it's because his best buddy or his best buddy's best buddy is friends with the owner of that american shrimp deal.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7021
Local time: 4:54 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | That's a good reason not to bring up EDITS, if there is not a time stamp to establish WHEN-- WHO-- posted WHAT.
What it makes you look like is a desperate bean counter. Even worse, the beans aren't even visible. |
Sigh basics of reality dont connect with you much if ever.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Omgz keeeeeep reading... still none of my points being addressed. |
Well fuck you then. Let's skip to the end and take a look. |
You really didnt address any points in the reply and you really really hadnt made a single point yet in the post. |
So why are you REPLYING to my replies to your points with counter argument?
You make accusations then self sabotage them.
Here is one example:
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
It's his fucken JOB munkey. |
So he is looking to eliminate his job?No it's not his job. He is there to address laws and such... introduce new laws about new things... manage things... pass bills |
Such as SPENDING bills. |
You apparently dont have knowledge about earmarks and such. |
I've noticed that when ever you add "and such" to a proposition, your about to say something really stupid IE:
| Quote: | | Personally I oppose earmarks in a sense. Basically earmarks can be good and sometimes bad. |
And your the judge of quality/importance rather the people who elected Paul, and asked for the funding. (It gets stupider though)
| Quote: | | From the examples I saw of Ron Paul's earmarks... such as money going to a private company to clear some sunken ship in harbour or something... that's a really bad earmark. |
How do you know? Do you think it's a good idea to have a sunken ship in a HARBOUR? or "something" ? What if it's a HAZARD?
Another puzzle for you, would it be democratic to leave fund allocation entirely in the hands of appointed bureaucrats in federal departments? What do you think earmarks are for?
TO THE POINT, earmarks ARE part of spending bills, and congressmen pass bills. I don't address your points? I UNDRESS your bullshit points. If you want to make that chicken shit plead every time we argue than fuck off. If you want to continue this, get your lazy ass over to the original thread that YOU punked out of and take your turn:
http://www.atheistforums.com/post130874.html#130874
Fittingly, the last post in that thread is an ironic junk post by JOE.
Either way, I must not neglect THIS post in the mean time. It's to good to pass up.
| Quote: | | There are people who oppose earmarks because essentially the abuse that the american politicians have taken to. They now are angry because such a hypocrite came onto their beat. |
And who are these people?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | No, it's the reverse. Earmarks are "stupid tools" to toss money BACK at VOTERS who have asked for it, (and then they might vote for the same politicians again.) |
Seriously... go find some rusty scissors and cut your hands off. Have a friend help you. |
Is that how you address a point? Requests for funding DO come through Paul's office. He's a representative. That's a fact.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | No he just plays the game, as it's his job. |
GW Bush and Hitler just played the game... it's their job. |
OSKAR SCHINDLER played the game... Got another immature tactic?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | He would like some of the rules to change, but until then he ain't gonna be doing his job if he doesn't address the wishes of the people who voted for him. |
Doing something he opposes... yes makes sense to me... |
No doubt, you would like a person you voted for to address there own agenda rather than yours.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | To put this into terms that you might understand: if there is some online multiplayer video game that has had multiple patches applied to it that YOU as a player consider unfair/wasteful to the resources that the players work to gain/and at times in violation of the original rules of the game, are you a HYPOCRIT for continuing to play, even though you started playing after many of these patches? |
I need an example to find out if this even a valid concept. |
Well try GOOGLE. "game patch unfair" look into it. Not an uncommon controversy.
| Quote: | | Ive played many games... never seen this happening exactly... but I cant say its false just yet. |
Take a moment to look then.
| Quote: | Lets for example give a valid analogy using online multiplayer games.
I start playing counterstrike. Some hacker comes to do their deal and destroy the game. I'm not admin I dont have the power to end this hacker... but I can start a vote to kick em. I do the vote and not enough people vote to kick. So the hacker stays. The hypocritical thing would be for me to start hacking also. |
False analogy! (1UP)
Observe:
Some congressman embezzles a billion dollars from the treasury, It's NOT up to a vote to get him indited, but up to law enforcement and the judiciary. It WOULD be hypocritical for you as another congressman to start embezzaling, IF you had spoken out against embezzlement in the past, but that hardly maters as it would be TOTALY ILEGAL, as it's AGAINST THE RULES to embezzle, where as it's NOT against the rules to stuff ear marks into a spending bill. Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish earmarks he wants to limit unconstitutional government spending.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | An earmark is not the same as a spending bill. The later contains the former. The constitutionality, or the merritt of either are not necessarily related, and Paul is not responsible for the contents of the ENTIRE BILL, or what the executive does with it. |
Damn you're blind to ron paul.... Ron Paul is higher then caeser for you... Caeser can do no wrong. Ron Paul's neutral and wrong is right. At least to you. |
WAY to address my point munky! GOOD JOB! You so addressed my point with that remark.
| Quote: | Lets say I'm Congressman Munky for a second. Scary yes I know.
LEts say there's this bill which is going to pass no doubt... dems and retards both will approve this... but in some very odd reason I'm deluded enough to be a libertarian and I will be voting against this bill.
Now there's congressman Banana and he's an independent. He isnt sure which way he is going to go. So the executor approaches this banana and says... look we'll earmark $1 million for your brother's contracting business so they can build a shed. The congressman now is voting yes.
Now I oppose the entire thing. I think it's terrible. So I go earmark $15 million to get my best friend's house repainted. Ummm UHHH... not only are these fucktard earmarks... but he is voting against something which he is taking advantage of. It's saying no and yes at the same time. |
No, it's a ludicrously flagrant conflict of interest. Even for American politics.
Which BROTHER of Ron Paul's has a contracting business BTW? FACTS munky. Do you have facts? Where in the above do you address the constitutionality of earmarks/spending bills?... No where.
| Quote: | | Hell... the argument of "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending" isnt even remotely valid... spending 8 million $$$$ of tax money on "marketing of wild American shrimp"... fuck that... |
What you should have said was "fuck FOX news". Paul wants to have SUBSIDIES removed from FOREGN FARM shrimp. He wants to move money, not spend it.
| Quote: | | I'm so glad my representative is doing that kind of retarded shit... |
Do you even know who your representative is?
| Quote: | | spending money to market something which the free market doesnt have interest in? |
BZZZZZ.
| Quote: | | I think the objective federal guys would have spent that 8 million a little better then that? Perhaps they could have spent that 8 million$ on education? Feeding the poor? |
Who says some of them haven't earmarked for educational programs, and food subsidies?
How rich do you think fishermen are? How about there kids?
Asshole.
| Quote: | | What's even worse that he earmarked this money and then voted against it... How about earmark that 400 million$ and give that money back to the people it came from? Earmarks can go towards making people's taxes go away... |
Your the one who accused me of not understanding earmarks (and such). Paul IS trying to give there money back in one of the few ways legally available to him. The money for a given budget is ALREADY appropriated.
| Quote: | | why isnt he doing that |
Because he hasn't been elected president yet. He can't yet abolish the IRS.
| Quote: | | and NOT being a hypocrite? Oh right it's because his best buddy or his best buddy's best buddy is friends with the owner of that american shrimp deal. |
Can you prove that? I'm guessing no.
_________________
"-- 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4245
Local time: 7:54 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bah I need to wait until sunday now to fly. Totally didnt wake up. Bah I'm not in the masochistic mood... so I'm not going to bother reading that post. You're entirely wrong and your disability limits you from realizing it.
_________________
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.
Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is." Ironically creationism is ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
