Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

white rice · Feb 6, 2004, 02:07 am

So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending? Non-discretionary spending outside of defense has also ballooned. The Medicare Reform Bill isn't pleasing its intended constituents, unless you count the pharmaceuticals, but it will make it bankrupt in the next 15 years.

For all the cries of Clinton's 8 years of destroying the military, it did a bang up job shock and aweing the Iraqis and Afghanis into submission. But let's say that the military needs that much money and factor that into Bush's record...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2003Dec5.html

-"In the last three years we've had the biggest farm bill, the biggest education bill, the biggest foreign aid bill and now the biggest health care bill in 30 years," said Moore of the free-market Club for Growth. "There's now not any pretense that Bush is committed to smaller government."

-The White House prefers a different set of statistics. Excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush aides say, he cut spending 6 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003, and 2 to 3 percent for 2004 -- this after a comparable increase of nearly 15 percent in these areas in the last year of the Clinton administration.

-"But when a White House official presented this analysis to a meeting he attended recently, "I nearly laughed out loud," said Heritage's Riedl. He calculates that 55 percent of all new spending in the past two years, or $164 billion of $296 billion, is from areas unrelated to defense and homeland security. Unemployment benefits are up 85 percent, education spending up 65 percent. "It's really an across-the-board thing," he said. This has led federal spending to top $20,000 per household in today's dollars for the first time since World War II -- a jump of $4,000 in the past four years."

-Economist [Bruce] Bartlett [a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis] said, "the budgetary situation is getting so off track that you simply can't propose any more tax cuts without looking like a complete idiot."

Impenitent · Feb 6, 2004, 11:02 am

"So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending?"

because rove thinks if bush appeases the democRATS with pork for their projects, they will be satisfied and shut up... of course this will not work, the democRATS will whine and lie even louder because they didn't have the power to waste even more money on their various social pork projects...

and the cries about "it will bankrupt medicare" are stupid, medicare (as well as social security) are doomed to bankruptsy by their very construction... they are ponzy schemes... the amount of beneficiaries vastly outnumber the amount of tax slaves funding the system... how to fix them? destroy them totally... and cheaper drugs from canada? renounce your american citizenship and become a canadian citizen

"For all the cries of Clinton's 8 years of destroying the military, it did a bang up job shock and aweing the Iraqis and Afghanis into submission."

it took 2 and a half years to rebuild the military after clinton...

why do you think we didn't invade iraq on 9-12 if bush was so gung ho about it the day after he was elected? use your head...

eburchelli · Feb 6, 2004, 02:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending? Non-discretionary spending outside of defense has also ballooned. The Medicare Reform Bill isn't pleasing its intended constituents, unless you count the pharmaceuticals, but it will make it bankrupt in the next 15 years.

For all the cries of Clinton's 8 years of destroying the military, it did a bang up job shock and aweing the Iraqis and Afghanis into submission. But let's say that the military needs that much money and factor that into Bush's record...

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Let me clue you in.... Whatever Bush has earmarked for domestic programs, including education and medicare reform, the Democrats have wanted more.

However, the debt is because of the war on terror, and this is something we wouldn't have had to deal with, if a Democrat had been President on 9/11. A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress would have played footsie at the UN with Kofi Annan and the French and Germans and nothing more would have been done to go after al Qaeda, than what Clinton did during his term in office.

And for your information, not only did Clinton nearly destroy the military, but it's still not where it belongs and without using the Reservists and National Guard, going into Afghanistan and Iraq would have been impossible.

And John Kerry was never a help to the military in all his years in Congress. He vetoed nearly all the modern weapon systems that were used in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

white rice · Feb 7, 2004, 01:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
"So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending?"

because rove thinks if bush appeases the democRATS with pork for their projects, they will be satisfied and shut up... of course this will not work, the democRATS will whine and lie even louder because they didn't have the power to waste even more money on their various social pork projects...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yeah... not because he didn't want to feed his business allies or appease the religious right who do want a bigger governmental hand on family values, but because he wanted to help his enemy's platform.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

and the cries about "it will bankrupt medicare" are stupid, medicare (as well as social security) are doomed to bankruptsy by their very construction... they are ponzy schemes... the amount of beneficiaries vastly outnumber the amount of tax slaves funding the system... how to fix them? destroy them totally... and cheaper drugs from canada? renounce your american citizenship and become a canadian citizen <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What does that have to do with Bush spending more money to increase medicare benefits? Oh, because you want it destroyed, you'll give a Republican president the license to bankrupt it faster than a Democrat president.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
it took 2 and a half years to rebuild the military after clinton...

why do you think we didn't invade iraq on 9-12 if bush was so gung ho about it the day after he was elected? use your head...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh yeah, bueracracy and technology works so fast in the modern era that Bush deserves all the credit! :rolleyes: The military plans well ahead in advance for technology and equipment matters. The stealth bomber was designed in the 70s. There was no great drive or draft to increase numbers in the military during the Bush admin. Presidents inherit militaries, they don't build them. Clinton's dismantling took years to accomplish and not all of it was under one term.

We invaded Afghanistan because it was the adopted home of Bin Laden. By invading Iraq the day after you assume that the US has mounds of evidence that it was responsible for 9/11. Have you fallen for the bait-n-switch and assume that invading Iraq was a responsive act of war rather than a pre-emptive one?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli)

Whatever Bush has earmarked for domestic programs, including education and medicare reform, the Democrats have wanted more. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That might be true. Bush's policies and a Republican controlled Congress have revealed that they're cut from the same cloth.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli)

However, the debt is because of the war on terror, <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

A good chunk portion of that debt is from the multiphase tax cuts when government revenues are low. Having 55% of new spending outside of defense helps make the debt bigger than it should be.

Bush is going to propose another tax cut in an attempt to boost the economy with supply side economics, but he hasn't planned to reduce non-defense spending programs. How is that fiscally responsible? The Republicans have the Legislative and Executive power to force their agenda into policy. So how much can be said that Republicans are better than Democrats in this area?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli)

And for your information, not only did Clinton nearly destroy the military, but it's still not where it belongs and without using the Reservists and National Guard, going into Afghanistan and Iraq would have been impossible.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You might be right, but Sec. Defense Rumsfeld doesn't feel the need to add more servicemen to our existing forces. If it was a critical problem rather than a political and morale issue, then a drive for a major increase in servicemen would've been necessary.

Eulux · Feb 7, 2004, 03:20 am

Trust me, I know the definition, I'll put it directly below:

Translated, it means, "against the person." Used in common context to mean a general dismissal of someone's arguements for being a certain type of person, like a CEO or lawyer...here's an example:
CEO: I like business.
Worker: well, you are a CEO, why wouldn't you think that?
CEO: But I gave great reasons!
Worker: Doesn't matter, you are a CEO, which nullifies your arguements. You just work to keep us down.

I believe that is fairly accurate, so let's let that be, unless you can explain it better.

My, "dumb fuck," comment was just my general feeling after reading your post...I didn't dismiss your arguements simply because you are a conservative. I simply think your arguements are incorrect...I also believe that you think your arguements are infallable, therefore you are closed minded.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the democRATS spent us into the poor house since johnson and created all these stupid government social programs that do nothing but keep the "poor" stupid and poor so they will vote democRAT...
closed mind? LOL... right<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Those programs help the poor...I'm a prime example...I recieved social security checks, and now attend college because of those checks. As for the closed minded part, I still think I'm in the right claiming that...and will you please provide some evidence, rather than spew your own personal opinions? I would appreciate it.

Impenitent · Feb 8, 2004, 01:01 am

"Used in common context to mean a general dismissal of someone's arguements for being a certain type of person"

and starting your rebuttal with the ad hominem diminishes your argument not mine...

"I also believe that you think your arguements are infallable, therefore you are closed minded."

all this amounts to is another ad homenium...

you have yet to show me the fallacy, besides your own, on which you base your conclusion... this conclusion is a non sequitur of course

"Used in common context to mean a general dismissal of someone's arguements for being a certain type of person"

I can argue that you are a slave to the state because you recieve your means of support from the state... since you are beholden to the state for your survival, you must be closed minded to anyone or anything that shows you that the state is not beneficial...

nothing to do with infallibility... nothing to do with invalidity...
you are programmed by the state via the welfare benefits you recieve...

appreciation is a wonderful thing... the state has your mind in its pocket (as you admit "Those programs help the poor...I'm a prime example...I recieved social security checks") and you accuse me of close mindedness?

Eulux · Feb 8, 2004, 02:20 am

"and starting your rebuttal with the ad hominem diminishes your argument not mine..."

Once again, not ad hominem, simple insult. I was not basing my arguements on my opinion of you, or on what you may very well be.

"all this amounts to is another ad homenium...you have yet to show me the fallacy, besides your own, on which you base your conclusion... this conclusion is a non sequitur of course"

Statements of one's opinions does not add up to an ad hominem...and you further my point by saying that your arguements are infallable, at least in your mind. Non sequitur my ass, it's ad hominem, if you view my statements as ad hominem...

"I can argue that you are a slave to the state because you recieve your means of support from the state... since you are beholden to the state for your survival, you must be closed minded to anyone or anything that shows you that the state is not beneficial..."

If I'm a slave to the state, I've got to be the biggest rebel since...damn, his name started with a s...roman...s...he was crucified..........damn if I can't remember. sparticus? maybe. Anyways, if I'm a slave, then why do I see too much fault in the state? Then again, you can argue that the moon is made out of cheese, if you wish...it's not a matter of "can."

Oh no, I am very open minded...Once again, if you provide evidence, I would be much more likely to believe you...And I never accused you of being closed minded...I said that was my belief, which I do not hold against you. If I did, then what would be the purpose of posting?

Impenitent · Feb 8, 2004, 04:50 am

"Once again, not ad hominem, simple insult."

no, it was an insult intended to obscure my argument, it was ad hominem by the rules of logic...

"Statements of one's opinions does not add up to an ad hominem."

when they do nothing but call names it is an ad hominem

I never said my arguments were infalliable... you never showed the fallacy (not that one exists) and from that premise, your inability to show a fallacy, you conclude that I have a closed mind... that conclusion does not follow from that premise, it is a non sequitur...

"Anyways, if I'm a slave, then why do I see too much fault in the state?"

just a guess but because you are greedy and the state doesn't give you enough of a free ride?

"Oh no, I am very open minded"

and I just showed you a valid argument with evidence that proves that your mind is closed with regard to your welfare state... you refuse to admit it, but that's fine...

"And I never accused you of being closed minded"

the hell you didn't... you said "I also believe that you think your arguements are infallable, therefore you are closed minded."

you believed that I thought something other than I did and do and you concluded that "you are closed minded" NOT I believe you are closed minded...

tusaki · Feb 8, 2004, 07:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
"Once again, not ad hominem, simple insult."

no, it was an insult intended to obscure my argument, it was ad hominem by the rules of logic...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>What argument? The one where you implied the Democrats are the 9 demons of hell and the Republicans the truthful angels of salvation?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

"Statements of one's opinions does not add up to an ad hominem."

when they do nothing but call names it is an ad hominem
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>If I care about the tree in the backyard, and you call the tree ugly just to spite me, what kind of a Latin name is there for such a fallacy?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
just a guess but because you are greedy and the state doesn't give you enough of a free ride?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Here you imply something again. 1) He is greedy. 2) The state is evil and gives stupid people to much. [of my [impenitent's] money]

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
"Oh no, I am very open minded"

and I just showed you a valid argument with evidence that proves that your mind is closed with regard to your welfare state... you refuse to admit it, but that's fine... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>I've been looking for your valid argument. I suppose it's the argument where you accuse him of being close minded because he receives benefits from the state. And what is your excuse?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
""And I never accused you of being closed minded"

the hell you didn't... you said "I also believe that you think your arguments are infallible, therefore you are closed minded."

you believed that I thought something other than I did and do and you concluded that "you are closed minded" NOT I believe you are closed minded...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Well, from what you are arguing here (in this tread, and other threads about republican/democrats), you seem close minded. And if you think something different than you argue, why do argue this way in the first place?

Impenitent · Feb 9, 2004, 01:55 am

"The one where you implied the Democrats are the 9 demons of hell and the Republicans the truthful angels of salvation?"

LMAO!!! not at all... there are no demons or angels... just different ways of approaching freedom...

"If I care about the tree in the backyard, and you call the tree ugly just to spite me, what kind of a Latin name is there for such a fallacy?"

that is simply name calling and not a fallacy in logical debate

"Here you imply something again. 1) He is greedy. 2) The state is evil and gives stupid people to much. [of my [impenitent's] money]"

have you ever heard of sarcasm? notice it began "just a guess..."

"I've been looking for your valid argument."

take a philosophy 120 course, the argument was obvious...

"And what is your excuse?"

excuse for what?

"Well, from what you are arguing here"... I simply showed his errors in his argument

"why do argue this way in the first place? "

because I can... when someone proclaims that they have the "truth" the way the light and the answers and they can't defend that position, what does that say about those ideas?

Feb 6, 2004, 02:07 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending? Non-discretionary spending outside of defense has also ballooned. The Medicare Reform Bill isn't pleasing its intended constituents, unless you count the pharmaceuticals, but it will make it bankrupt in the next 15 years. For all the cries of Clinton's 8 years of destroying the military, it did a bang up job shock and aweing the Iraqis and Afghanis into submission. But let's say that the military needs that much money and factor that into Bush's record... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2003Dec5.html -"In the last three years we've had the biggest farm bill, the biggest education bill, the biggest foreign aid bill and now the biggest health care bill in 30 years," said Moore of the free-market Club for Growth. "There's now not any pretense that Bush is committed to smaller government." -The White House prefers a different set of statistics. Excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush aides say, he cut spending 6 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003, and 2 to 3 percent for 2004 -- this after a comparable increase of nearly 15 percent in these areas in the last year of the Clinton administration. -"But when a White House official presented this analysis to a meeting he attended recently, "I nearly laughed out loud," said Heritage's Riedl. He calculates that 55 percent of all new spending in the past two years, or $164 billion of $296 billion, is from areas unrelated to defense and homeland security. Unemployment benefits are up 85 percent, education spending up 65 percent. "It's really an across-the-board thing," he said. This has led federal spending to top $20,000 per household in today's dollars for the first time since World War II -- a jump of $4,000 in the past four years." -Economist [Bruce] Bartlett [a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis] said, "the budgetary situation is getting so off track that you simply can't propose any more tax cuts without looking like a complete idiot." Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Feb 6, 2004, 11:02 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending?" because rove thinks if bush appeases the democRATS with pork for their projects, they will be satisfied and shut up... of course this will not work, the democRATS will whine and lie even louder because they didn't have the power to waste even more money on their various social pork projects... and the cries about "it will bankrupt medicare" are stupid, medicare (as well as social security) are doomed to bankruptsy by their very construction... they are ponzy schemes... the amount of beneficiaries vastly outnumber the amount of tax slaves funding the system... how to fix them? destroy them totally... and cheaper drugs from canada? renounce your american citizenship and become a canadian citizen "For all the cries of Clinton's 8 years of destroying the military, it did a bang up job shock and aweing the Iraqis and Afghanis into submission." it took 2 and a half years to rebuild the military after clinton... why do you think we didn't invade iraq on 9-12 if bush was so gung ho about it the day after he was elected? use your head... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 6, 2004, 02:37 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,) So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending? Non-discretionary spending outside of defense has also ballooned. The Medicare Reform Bill isn't pleasing its intended constituents, unless you count the pharmaceuticals, but it will make it bankrupt in the next 15 years. For all the cries of Clinton's 8 years of destroying the military, it did a bang up job shock and aweing the Iraqis and Afghanis into submission. But let's say that the military needs that much money and factor that into Bush's record... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let me clue you in.... Whatever Bush has earmarked for domestic programs, including education and medicare reform, the Democrats have wanted more. However, the debt is because of the war on terror, and this is something we wouldn't have had to deal with, if a Democrat had been President on 9/11. A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress would have played footsie at the UN with Kofi Annan and the French and Germans and nothing more would have been done to go after al Qaeda, than what Clinton did during his term in office. And for your information, not only did Clinton nearly destroy the military, but it's still not where it belongs and without using the Reservists and National Guard, going into Afghanistan and Iraq would have been impossible. And John Kerry was never a help to the military in all his years in Congress. He vetoed nearly all the modern weapon systems that were used in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Feb 7, 2004, 01:57 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) "So why is Bush and the Republican Congress tearing up the budget with unfettered spending?" because rove thinks if bush appeases the democRATS with pork for their projects, they will be satisfied and shut up... of course this will not work, the democRATS will whine and lie even louder because they didn't have the power to waste even more money on their various social pork projects... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah... not because he didn't want to feed his business allies or appease the religious right who do want a bigger governmental hand on family values, but because he wanted to help his enemy's platform. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) and the cries about "it will bankrupt medicare" are stupid, medicare (as well as social security) are doomed to bankruptsy by their very construction... they are ponzy schemes... the amount of beneficiaries vastly outnumber the amount of tax slaves funding the system... how to fix them? destroy them totally... and cheaper drugs from canada? renounce your american citizenship and become a canadian citizen <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What does that have to do with Bush spending more money to increase medicare benefits? Oh, because you want it destroyed, you'll give a Republican president the license to bankrupt it faster than a Democrat president. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) it took 2 and a half years to rebuild the military after clinton... why do you think we didn't invade iraq on 9-12 if bush was so gung ho about it the day after he was elected? use your head...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh yeah, bueracracy and technology works so fast in the modern era that Bush deserves all the credit! :rolleyes: The military plans well ahead in advance for technology and equipment matters. The stealth bomber was designed in the 70s. There was no great drive or draft to increase numbers in the military during the Bush admin. Presidents inherit militaries, they don't build them. Clinton's dismantling took years to accomplish and not all of it was under one term. We invaded Afghanistan because it was the adopted home of Bin Laden. By invading Iraq the day after you assume that the US has mounds of evidence that it was responsible for 9/11. Have you fallen for the bait-n-switch and assume that invading Iraq was a responsive act of war rather than a pre-emptive one? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli) Whatever Bush has earmarked for domestic programs, including education and medicare reform, the Democrats have wanted more. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That might be true. Bush's policies and a Republican controlled Congress have revealed that they're cut from the same cloth. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli) However, the debt is because of the war on terror, <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> A good chunk portion of that debt is from the multiphase tax cuts when government revenues are low. Having 55% of new spending outside of defense helps make the debt bigger than it should be. Bush is going to propose another tax cut in an attempt to boost the economy with supply side economics, but he hasn't planned to reduce non-defense spending programs. How is that fiscally responsible? The Republicans have the Legislative and Executive power to force their agenda into policy. So how much can be said that Republicans are better than Democrats in this area? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli) And for your information, not only did Clinton nearly destroy the military, but it's still not where it belongs and without using the Reservists and National Guard, going into Afghanistan and Iraq would have been impossible. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You might be right, but Sec. Defense Rumsfeld doesn't feel the need to add more servicemen to our existing forces. If it was a critical problem rather than a political and morale issue, then a drive for a major increase in servicemen would've been necessary. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Feb 7, 2004, 03:20 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Eulux Molten Ash Location: houston Posts: 27	Trust me, I know the definition, I'll put it directly below: Translated, it means, "against the person." Used in common context to mean a general dismissal of someone's arguements for being a certain type of person, like a CEO or lawyer...here's an example: CEO: I like business. Worker: well, you are a CEO, why wouldn't you think that? CEO: But I gave great reasons! Worker: Doesn't matter, you are a CEO, which nullifies your arguements. You just work to keep us down. I believe that is fairly accurate, so let's let that be, unless you can explain it better. My, "dumb fuck," comment was just my general feeling after reading your post...I didn't dismiss your arguements simply because you are a conservative. I simply think your arguements are incorrect...I also believe that you think your arguements are infallable, therefore you are closed minded. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the democRATS spent us into the poor house since johnson and created all these stupid government social programs that do nothing but keep the "poor" stupid and poor so they will vote democRAT... closed mind? LOL... right<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Those programs help the poor...I'm a prime example...I recieved social security checks, and now attend college because of those checks. As for the closed minded part, I still think I'm in the right claiming that...and will you please provide some evidence, rather than spew your own personal opinions? I would appreciate it. "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man." -Heidegger www.rorta.com -knowledge is power...

Feb 8, 2004, 01:01 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"Used in common context to mean a general dismissal of someone's arguements for being a certain type of person" and starting your rebuttal with the ad hominem diminishes your argument not mine... "I also believe that you think your arguements are infallable, therefore you are closed minded." all this amounts to is another ad homenium... you have yet to show me the fallacy, besides your own, on which you base your conclusion... this conclusion is a non sequitur of course "Used in common context to mean a general dismissal of someone's arguements for being a certain type of person" I can argue that you are a slave to the state because you recieve your means of support from the state... since you are beholden to the state for your survival, you must be closed minded to anyone or anything that shows you that the state is not beneficial... nothing to do with infallibility... nothing to do with invalidity... you are programmed by the state via the welfare benefits you recieve... appreciation is a wonderful thing... the state has your mind in its pocket (as you admit "Those programs help the poor...I'm a prime example...I recieved social security checks") and you accuse me of close mindedness? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 8, 2004, 02:20 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Eulux Molten Ash Location: houston Posts: 27	"and starting your rebuttal with the ad hominem diminishes your argument not mine..." Once again, not ad hominem, simple insult. I was not basing my arguements on my opinion of you, or on what you may very well be. "all this amounts to is another ad homenium...you have yet to show me the fallacy, besides your own, on which you base your conclusion... this conclusion is a non sequitur of course" Statements of one's opinions does not add up to an ad hominem...and you further my point by saying that your arguements are infallable, at least in your mind. Non sequitur my ass, it's ad hominem, if you view my statements as ad hominem... "I can argue that you are a slave to the state because you recieve your means of support from the state... since you are beholden to the state for your survival, you must be closed minded to anyone or anything that shows you that the state is not beneficial..." If I'm a slave to the state, I've got to be the biggest rebel since...damn, his name started with a s...roman...s...he was crucified..........damn if I can't remember. sparticus? maybe. Anyways, if I'm a slave, then why do I see too much fault in the state? Then again, you can argue that the moon is made out of cheese, if you wish...it's not a matter of "can." Oh no, I am very open minded...Once again, if you provide evidence, I would be much more likely to believe you...And I never accused you of being closed minded...I said that was my belief, which I do not hold against you. If I did, then what would be the purpose of posting? "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man." -Heidegger www.rorta.com -knowledge is power...

Feb 8, 2004, 04:50 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"Once again, not ad hominem, simple insult." no, it was an insult intended to obscure my argument, it was ad hominem by the rules of logic... "Statements of one's opinions does not add up to an ad hominem." when they do nothing but call names it is an ad hominem I never said my arguments were infalliable... you never showed the fallacy (not that one exists) and from that premise, your inability to show a fallacy, you conclude that I have a closed mind... that conclusion does not follow from that premise, it is a non sequitur... "Anyways, if I'm a slave, then why do I see too much fault in the state?" just a guess but because you are greedy and the state doesn't give you enough of a free ride? "Oh no, I am very open minded" and I just showed you a valid argument with evidence that proves that your mind is closed with regard to your welfare state... you refuse to admit it, but that's fine... "And I never accused you of being closed minded" the hell you didn't... you said "I also believe that you think your arguements are infallable, therefore you are closed minded." you believed that I thought something other than I did and do and you concluded that "you are closed minded" NOT I believe you are closed minded... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 8, 2004, 07:08 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) "Once again, not ad hominem, simple insult." no, it was an insult intended to obscure my argument, it was ad hominem by the rules of logic... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>What argument? The one where you implied the Democrats are the 9 demons of hell and the Republicans the truthful angels of salvation? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) "Statements of one's opinions does not add up to an ad hominem." when they do nothing but call names it is an ad hominem <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>If I care about the tree in the backyard, and you call the tree ugly just to spite me, what kind of a Latin name is there for such a fallacy? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) just a guess but because you are greedy and the state doesn't give you enough of a free ride?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Here you imply something again. 1) He is greedy. 2) The state is evil and gives stupid people to much. [of my [impenitent's] money] </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) "Oh no, I am very open minded" and I just showed you a valid argument with evidence that proves that your mind is closed with regard to your welfare state... you refuse to admit it, but that's fine... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I've been looking for your valid argument. I suppose it's the argument where you accuse him of being close minded because he receives benefits from the state. And what is your excuse? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ""And I never accused you of being closed minded" the hell you didn't... you said "I also believe that you think your arguments are infallible, therefore you are closed minded." you believed that I thought something other than I did and do and you concluded that "you are closed minded" NOT I believe you are closed minded...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Well, from what you are arguing here (in this tread, and other threads about republican/democrats), you seem close minded. And if you think something different than you argue, why do argue this way in the first place? Hope & Dream

Feb 9, 2004, 01:55 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"The one where you implied the Democrats are the 9 demons of hell and the Republicans the truthful angels of salvation?" LMAO!!! not at all... there are no demons or angels... just different ways of approaching freedom... "If I care about the tree in the backyard, and you call the tree ugly just to spite me, what kind of a Latin name is there for such a fallacy?" that is simply name calling and not a fallacy in logical debate "Here you imply something again. 1) He is greedy. 2) The state is evil and gives stupid people to much. [of my [impenitent's] money]" have you ever heard of sarcasm? notice it began "just a guess..." "I've been looking for your valid argument." take a philosophy 120 course, the argument was obvious... "And what is your excuse?" excuse for what? "Well, from what you are arguing here"... I simply showed his errors in his argument "why do argue this way in the first place? " because I can... when someone proclaims that they have the "truth" the way the light and the answers and they can't defend that position, what does that say about those ideas? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...