Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply saying "your stupid!", but then that would make you look stupid and it would be considered a direct attack wouldn't it?
Sorry, but you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply saying "your stupid!", but then that would make you look stupid and it would be considered a direct attack wouldn't it?
You could have also saved yourself a lot of typing, couldn't you?
If you read the title of this thread, and the accompanying original post, and can't figure out that Bunning was figuratively telling 1.2 million people "tough s**t," you are either slow or uneducated. It's a literary device that is rather commonly used and understood by millions of smart, educated people.
You could have also saved yourself a lot of typing, couldn't you?
If you read the title of this thread, and the accompanying original post, and can't figure out that Bunning was figuratively telling 1.2 million people "tough s**t," you are either slow or uneducated. It's a literary device that is rather commonly used and understood by millions of smart, educated people.
Can you figure out what the thread title means?
I am well aware with what he said and the reasons for saying it.
You make the assumptions that I disagree with the position he held. Your attempt is to label anyone who does not agree with your position as "stupid" and it is a common fallacy of those who wish to avoid the content of the argument in an attempt to discredit those they are arguing with.
“ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[20] ”
Translation: You cant find one thing to dispute it, so you'll attempt to discredit it by simply calling it names.. FAIL!!
Hmmm. How many jobs does defense spending create? Leave out the jobs of soldiers, sailors, etc. themselves. Give me an estimate for places like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman and the like. Then give me an estimate for how many jobs the wages paid to the people in those jobs create when they are then spent at grocery or clothing stores or theaters or restaurants. Maybe even tell me how many jobs in so-called gentlemen's clubs the average military base creates within five miles of its perimeter.
Now please tell me how many jobs Bush's tax cuts for the rich created. Can you do that?
I am well aware with what he said and the reasons for saying it.
You make the assumptions that I disagree with the position he held. Your attempt is to label anyone who does not agree with your position as "stupid" and it is a common fallacy of those who wish to avoid the content of the argument in an attempt to discredit those they are arguing with.
Did you read the actual argument he was making? It was about the thread title, nothing else. If you can't understand what the thread title means, you're either slow or uneducated. There are many people on here that I disagree with that are clearly very intelligent.
Singling me out for using that fallacy on that post is incorrect. I haven't labeled "anyone who does not agree with [my] position as "stupid." There is no position in this regard, just a literal understanding of how language works (pun intended). It's cut and dry - no opinion necessary. You could put it to a hundred English teachers and they would all come up with the same answer, that the thread title means that the Senator figuratively told 1.2 million people "tough ****" when he literally told one person "tough ****."
Did you read the actual argument he was making? It was about the thread title, nothing else. If you can't understand what the thread title means, you're either slow or uneducated. There are many people on here that I disagree with that are clearly very intelligent.
Singling me out for using that fallacy on that post is incorrect. I haven't labeled "anyone who does not agree with [my] position as "stupid." There is no position in this regard, just a literal understanding of how language works (pun intended). It's cut and dry - no opinion necessary. You could put it to a hundred English teachers and they would all come up with the same answer, that the thread title means that the Senator figuratively told 1.2 million people "tough ****" when he literally told one person "tough ****."
You can figure that out, right?
Using a false premise to summarize and then attack is a fallacy. Again, your attempt it to call people "stupid" for not agreeing with you.
His comment was concerning the spending, the other representative was applying emotional arguments to urge him. Emotional arguments are irrelevant when dealing with real facts and consequences of the issue. Your attempt to push this off as telling the American people to shove it is simply another fallacious attempt at leading the information into a political position of support.
You fail to deal with the content of the conversation in order to pick out points that serve your argument best. Again, this is a fallacious attempt at supporting a political position.
Make no mistake, your argument is invalid and your methods of evasion are also invalid. You can recognize this and attempt to repair them, or you can simply attack anyone who disagrees with your claims. You choose to attack.
“ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[20] ”
Daddy Bush was right.
In 1980, the last year before the tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars).
Revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars).
the tax cuts gave INCREASED revenues
Lower tax rates create better economic conditions. It's simple: lower tax rates = more robust economy = more federal revenue.
Tax relief will boost the economy's performance. To energize a soft economy, lawmakers should seek far larger reductions in the tax penalties that are imposed on productive behavior. The higher the rate, the steeper the penalty.
The ONLY thing which has been proven, time, and time again to boost jobs, is tax cuts.. PERIOD.. Thats it.. No government spending has a lasting effect upon the employment numbers, and dont get me started on federal hiring..
The Dems won't do it because tax cuts is a "Republican tactic" so the Dems will spend and spend and spend instead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
