With All Due Respect, Mr President, that is not true

[chaz345]

I simply want to see the data that led to your conclusion. As it is, nothing seems to exist. Is your opinion formed on data, or not?

Does every opinion need to be formed on quantifiable data?

Accept the fact that my opinion is what it is, appologize for accusing me of libel or slander based on what you told me I meant, and move on.

 

[Belk]

Like I just said, viewing a tax cut as being the same as government spending can only be done if one is operating from the assumption that it is the government's money in the first place. Are you honestly telling me that you have never seen a tax cut talked about basically as if it were government spending?

What do you want, a detailed log of every conversation that I've been in that lead me to my opinion?

Well, that or you could look at it as government spending if you think that instead of spending money or cutting taxes we should be paying off the national debt.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Does every opinion need to be formed on quantifiable data?

.

It's really just a way for him to nay-say and not offer anything in return.

 

[chaz345]

Well, that or you could look at it as government spending if you think that instead of spending money or cutting taxes we should be paying off the national debt.

Not really. To say that a tax cut is the same as spending, one has to be assuming that that tax money belonged to the government first. Saying to the taxpayer,"look at how much money we are giving you with this tax cut" when in actuality what's happening is that they are simply taking less, is the same "reasoning" that goes into calling a smaller than originally requested spending increase a spending cut.

 

[DieHappy]

Edit: Why did you not provide the whole thread? I asked for clarification of Panzer's position and he never answered. Why did you omit this? Are you being honest in providing only one post and not the thread?

You wanted to see the part of the thread where you cited machzer0's opinion as your evidence?
It's really a shame he left before you came back, I was looking forward to linking to that a few thousand times.

 

[KarateCowboy]

The porkulus bill was not formed in our interests, as Reid and Pelosi stripped from the final version a bunch of House-passed language that would prevent any jobs created by it from going to illegal aliens.

Just more proof of rich Dems trying to line their friends' pockets with taxpayer money so they can get richer off of cheap labor.

 

[jamesrwright3]

You wanted to see the part of the thread where you cited machzer0's opinion as your evidence?
It's really a shame he left before you came back, I was looking forward to linking to that a few thousand times.

What happened to him?

 

[DieHappy]

I wish I knew - he was one of the very private one's.

 

[Belk]

Not really. To say that a tax cut is the same as spending, one has to be assuming that that tax money belonged to the government first. Saying to the taxpayer,"look at how much money we are giving you with this tax cut" when in actuality what's happening is that they are simply taking less, is the same "reasoning" that goes into calling a smaller than originally requested spending increase a spending cut.

In both cases they are a loss of money from the government coffers. Admittedly, it looks a lot different to us poor schmoes who are footing the bill.

 

[rambot]

Me said:
Conservatives banking countries like Canada are in a much more desirable position than Canada. That is a fact.

Do you mean a more desirable position than the USA? Because as stands that sentence is slightly wonky.

Yes. Sorry, Canada is in a more desirable position than the USA.
Canada is in a much more desirable because they did NOT create a system set up for predatory lending; they didn't remove barriers to free investment.

Anyone who thinks freer markets are the only thing that's going to help this situation, well, I disagree with them vehemently. The thing about free markets is that inevitably gets more money to the rich. The centralization of funds is slowly mummifying capitalism. Unless my understanding of capitalism is completely bunk, it relies on the movement/flow of capital through the system. As that money becomes more centralized, individuals or families simply do not have the capacity to move that money through the system: They have TOO much. Some of them invest a portion of their assets but if the money is not being used to buy stuff, the market system doesn't benefit.

So the government spending 1.5 trillion is a nice way for the rich to not have to put their money back into the system.

I'm not an economist though so feel free to set me straight.

 

[jamesrwright3]

The problem you all have is you cannot really dispute anything I say. I actually look at the facts first, I am extremely well educated, and I generally have the argument down before I put thoughts on cyberspace, and it drives you nuts. I can generally poke holes in anything you write because your arguments are generally very, very bad.

You don't drive us nuts. It's hilarious since you are so wrong most of the time. You are also full of yourself.

It is not that I am liberal, it is that I am a well educated and generally irrefutable liberal that skewers any arguments you make

Sorry, your arguments are the ones being skewered.

. That's what drives you nuts, that I am generally right. It's like James' claim to have an MBA. It is not that I know he does not have one, it is that I can prove it.[/

Do I need to report you again for telling lies? I do have an MBA. Thank you.

 

[DieHappy]

The problem you all have is you cannot really dispute anything I say. I actually look at the facts first, I am extremely well educated, and I generally have the argument down before I put thoughts on cyberspace, and it drives you nuts. I can generally poke holes in anything you write because your arguments are generally very, very bad.

It is not that I am liberal, it is that I am a well educated and generally irrefutable liberal that skewers any arguments you make. That's what drives you nuts, that I am generally right. It's like James' claim to have an MBA. It is not that I know he does not have one, it is that I can prove it.

Uhhh, remind what your argument in this thread is?

I simply called you on the libel charge, a false charge that you can't back up with evidence, an alarming pattern for you.

 

[joebudda]

This is a serious problem for some, I understand, but opinions should be based on facts.

In your opinion, is the non-aggression principle a good thing or a bad thing as a foundation for a moral philosophy? Do you have any facts to support this opinion of yours regarding the non-aggression principle?

 

[chaz345]

that I am generally right .

In your opinion. Please provide objective facts that prove that you are usually right.

 

[rambot]

This is a serious problem for some, I understand, but opinions should be based on facts. That is the main problem I have here, most posters form opinions then...well that's about it. Few people are interested in actual facts, knowledge, or understanding. That would just get in the way of the opinion formation.

Have to agree with Al here. And after sifting through this thread, I don't think Al has said anything so objectionable that he deserves derision (at least, not until his last burp of self righteousness).

As for Belk, it seems the "whole thing" between him and Al started with this exchange:

Grizzly wrote:So if you look at the stimulus bill, about 35% is directed toward tax cuts. Do my Republican friends believe that at least this part of the bill will be stimulative?

Belk replied:
But a tax cut isn't at all the same as government spending, unless that is one thinks, like many on the left seem to, that it's all the government's money in the first place.

It seems like this is merely a strawman. It's a bit disapointing that this idea became an issue of contention.
Opinions should be based on facts. I don't know the "history" between y'all though.

 

[rambot]

am not telling lies. You said that you earned an MBA in 2002 or so, but on this forum you claimed to be moving in late 2007 to go to a MBA program. You deleted this information yesterday. Unfortunately google keeps a cache of information...

To be fair, that was dated 2004.

 

[Belk]

Have to agree with Al here. And after sifting through this thread, I don't think Al has said anything so objectionable that he deserves derision (at least, not until his last burp of self righteousness).

As for Belk, it seems the "whole thing" between him and Al started with this exchange:

Grizzly wrote:So if you look at the stimulus bill, about 35% is directed toward tax cuts. Do my Republican friends believe that at least this part of the bill will be stimulative?

Belk replied:
But a tax cut isn't at all the same as government spending, unless that is one thinks, like many on the left seem to, that it's all the government's money in the first place.

It seems like this is merely a strawman. It's a bit disapointing that this idea became an issue of contention.
Opinions should be based on facts. I don't know the "history" between y'all though.

Uh, that would be Chaz345, not me.

 

[rambot]

whoa...apologies! Sorry Belk.

 

[chaz345]

Belk replied:
But a tax cut isn't at all the same as government spending, unless that is one thinks, like many on the left seem to, that it's all the government's money in the first place.

Where Al "went sideways" as far as I am concerned is when he took the above statement of opinion by me and said that it amounted to me saying what other people think and accused me of libel and/or slander. And while I agree that in general opinions should be based on facts, when we're dealing with an impression that one has about what other people think, it's pretty hard to come by objective facts, isn't it? I mean after interacting with several people on a given issue, don't you usually come away with some opinion as to what they, individually or collectively think about closely related issues? And do you have direct objective facts to back that opinion up with? That's my real issue with Al in all of this, his almost demmand for such objective proof.

 

[Grizzly]

What happened to him?

"vacation"