Debates
11 Feb 05
11 Feb 05
Then on to your number eight: "What matters is that a relatively small group of very wealthy individuals is enacting "Starve The Beast" policies that are weakening America." No examples. No proof. Not even a clarification of an abstract statement. Powerful.
Then on to your number nine: "And they are removing the aids to class mobility that are a hallmark of the American dream and give people hope - things like job training and student loans." No examples. No proof. Just a childish assertion. Show us how and why these things are being done by "Bush" and "Government". Don't just say that it is so.
11 Feb 05
Your number ten is a classic. You don't even bother to make a valid assertion. Just a vague implication that because other revolutions happened, another will happen. You did say "The point is this: both the Bolshevik and French Revolutions were begun by large groups of "underclass" people who were fed up with the excesses of the wealthy while they starved. I don't think we're there yet, but I do think we're headed in that direction." Why do you think this? What leads you to this end? That would be good to know, so we MIGHT DEBATE it. Without this background knowledge, you can only be treated as a "religious" believer. You have faith in it. Ok. So you "believe" it and we respect your beliefs.
Then a quasi thesis... by you: "I can see a day where fed-up working-class Americans storm their city halls, march on Congress, where Americans decide that our system is broken and nonrepresentative to the point that they feel they must take up arms to remove the entire government." Ok. Kind of silly to be such sore losers.
My rebuttal is that the majority is quite within their rights to demand that their views be represented and that the current administration does that quite well. Democracy. Ain't it a bitch?
11 Feb 05
Originally posted by telerionThat conceded, doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable that 'your side' is becoming increasingly dependent upon the religious theocrats?
'Your side' did a tremendous job to win re-election (no sarcasm). Karl Rove is a political genius.
That conceded, doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable that 'your side' is becoming increasingly dependent upon the religious theocrats?
Without the zealous aid of evangelical xtian soldiers, your party would not have the political monopoly it ...[text shortened]... ution of science for 'intelligent' superstition?
Surely, you at least still value science?
No. Not at all. I don't really know that 'my side', ie, atheists, are becoming increasingly dependent on religion in any fashion or manner. Quite the opposite. As time goes on, religion becomes less of a force.
Without the zealous aid of evangelical xtian soldiers, your party would not have the political monopoly it now enjoys
Again just a wild assertion with no examples or offers of proof. But you compound your logical mistake by asserting that even if these "Bible-thumpers" do anything that it is by definition "wrong" or implied as "bad". It is not. These are good people. In my opinion.
School prayer? Please. Can't hurt. We liberals just smile at the fear of the possiblity of it being real... frightening people. Can't hurt. I want the ban on killing children, but support women's rights to kill if they must.
As to science. It will manage. By definition it only allows that which is real. All the attacks in the universe leave it unphased.
11 Feb 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I feel your pain, but you offer no examples. Just assertions.
I swear to God, if you were in front of me, one of us would be in alot of pain right now.
The truly childish belief is that your premise that the American people run the country. Corporate donors and big-money special interests get politicians elected or un-elected, and when a politico gets to Washington, they do their masters' bidding. If you don ...[text shortened]... g on mentally impaired.
I was kidding about the recessive gene thing; now I'm not so sure.
What proof do you offer? Or is the scientific method "killed by the liberal hand of not-god"?
You will just become more and more angry as I insist you back up your assertions. You can either start backing up your claims or just wilt away. Or prove me wrong by showing that what I call "assertions" are actually "facts supported by proof".
11 Feb 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672If you don't understand that our government is controlled by special interests and not us, I'm not going to be able to explain that to you.
If you don't understand that our government is controlled by special interests and not us, I'm not going to be able to explain that to you.
Do you, uh, need "proof" to know that corporations get handouts at our expense? Do you read newspapers? No, no you don't. If the President doesn't have to, why should you? Ok, I'll play your game - p ...[text shortened]... rugs. Who does this hurt? Who benefits?
See, this is like talking to a retarded person.
You can say that again. A million times. You are not going to be able to explain it because you don't understand it. Have you noticed that all I am asking for is proof? I might even agree with some of your assertions, but you will never know if you offer nothing but a vague "religious dogmatic faith" in your beliefs.
Do you, uh, need "proof" to know that corporations get handouts at our expense? Do you read newspapers? No, no you don't. If the President doesn't have to, why should you? Ok, I'll play your game - proof. The prescription drug benefit rammed through Congress by Bush last year bans the government from negotiating lower prices for drugs. Who does this hurt? Who benefits?
No. I know it happens and always has. I see no need to be alarmed at the "reality" of politics. Politics is an art. It is now and has always been practiced by the able. We call it government. Nothing to get excited over. You need an advanced course in "The Art Of Being A Chimp". I understand it quite well.
See, this is like talking to a retarded person.
Not to be redundant, but you just keep asserting and not giving examples of why we should believe you.
11 Feb 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Is "tax reform" a bad thing? Especially the current stage? The current stage is of "discussing and arguing it". In case you missed it. Is it a bad thing to have a free nation of peoples debate such ideas? Why is it wrong? Why should it bring on a "revolution"?
Proof for the tax reform movement: www.atr.org. Or do a Google search on Grover Norquist.
Number six: Tax cuts reduce government revenue. I don't need to prove that. It's a fact. Government revenue is at its lowest level when compared to GDP since 1950. (The Congressional Budget Office says so, not me.)
Seven - you make no argument regarding "seven".
Tax cuts always raise government revenue. Kennedy was the first, but 'every' time the US lowers taxes, net revenue increases. Sorry. Fact. Go to http://www.irs.gov/ and type in the type of chart to search. Good source for understanding fact as opposed to religious beliefs.
Number six: Tax cuts reduce government revenue. I don't need to prove that. It's a fact. Government revenue is at its lowest level when compared to GDP since 1950. (The Congressional Budget Office says so, not me.)
I am a little bit amused at this. You think this is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. Because? The less government takes, the more "capital" we capitalists have to work with. Kind of like the Euro guys gloating about how weak the dollar is. <snark>
11 Feb 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Everything is "covered", but still not supported by example and proof.
I think I covered just about everything. Right? Or should you and I traipse around Washington for a week, so you can see it with your own eyes? Short of that, you just need to educate yourself. Here, I'll help: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z.
See my first post in this thread. You know. The one that sent you ballistic.
I like your effort to help me. It is like all your posts. An assertion that "somehow" the alphabet will "magically" help me. How does you posting the alphabet help me? Give an example and a proof.
11 Feb 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672A single example can't hurt. Can it? I do read. That is the problem. My side won and I have to spend hours rebutting you. And I don't think you care a bit for fact or proof. You just want a "revolution" because your feelings are hurt a little. Hence MY assertion that you are childish. My proof is that you fail to offer a single example. You, like a child, expect to be taken seriously on your word alone.
Are you kidding me? You're just pulling my leg, right? Do you read, at all, ever? Do you ever pick up a newspaper?
An example of an adult posting your assertion number nine, And they are removing the aids to class mobility that are a hallmark of the American dream and give people hope - things like job training and student loans might be as follows:
"For example, they have recently recommended that Pell Grant funds be increased."
or
"For example, they have recently increased the funds available to Medicaid and Medicare patients."
Then explain why these are bad things.
Both the above are true facts. Bush has done both. And they do prevent "upward mobility" of the masses because they move us more toward socialism. But why am I helping you. Do it yourself.