Is John Edwards a complete retard?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm motivated by what's good for society. IMO, the vast majority of you are motivated by your own wallets, and little else,



[/ QUOTE ]Is this a joke? Do you really believe the difference between you and those you disagree with is that your motives are better?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not "THE difference", but IMO, it's A difference that is typically true with regards to taxes

[ QUOTE ]
though many of you would undoubtedly try to claim otherwise. [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] No, I'm not going to claim otherwise. I'm not going to lower myself to the level of faulty logic and delusion necessary to believe that motives are relevent to the issue at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No faulty logic or delusion necessary at all. When we talk about tax policy, I would assume that the ultimate objective of that policy is to benefit society. If you believe that is in fact my true motivation with regards to the position I take, then wouldn't you have less reason to question my veracity? However, if greed is my (or yours, as you are apparently admitting) true motivation, then you would have every reason to doubt my credibility when presenting a position that is ostensibly to benefit society - I now have a motive to consciously, or even subconsciously, misrepresent the facts, since what benefits society isn't necessarily the same as what I think benefits me.

[/ QUOTE ]
You just described the classic logical fallacy called "ad hominem". The example routinely given to illustrate this type of faulty logic is identical to what you just said.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism is the exact opposite, by definition, of anything convenenient for the 'powers that be'.


[/ QUOTE ]

you're confusing semantics. the 'powers that be' have the $$$, and the current administration is extremely sympathetic to those with the $$$

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you tell the difference between a libertarian and someone who is "on the side of" or "sympathetic to" the rich? Presumably their actions would be identical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that less government intervention and more libertarian policys would lead to less inequality for the reasons I noted in my last post.

[/ QUOTE ]
So would I. I meant that the actions of libertarians and "greedy rich loving @#$%^s" would be identical in the eyes of a leftist.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism is the exact opposite, by definition, of anything convenenient for the 'powers that be'.


[/ QUOTE ]

you're confusing semantics. the 'powers that be' have the $$$, and the current administration is extremely sympathetic to those with the $$$

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Im not confusing anything.

The powers that be have the $$$. Politicians, Republican and Democrat to the same degree, are sympathetic towards those that have the money. They will protect the 'powers that be' from competition, foreign or domestic, for instance.

Therefore, the more a government tends towards libertarianism, the LESS financially convenient it is for the 'powers that be'.

Conversely, the more powerful and influential a government grows, the MORE financially convenient it is for the 'powers that be'.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
when Bush is in power, and I'm sure libertarians helped get him there, the rich


[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

The libertarians tried to launch recounts in several key counties where Bush won.

The libertarians have repeatedly called for Bush's impeachment, even long before any Democrat uttered that word.

But for [censored]'s sake, why would you think a libertarian would help any politician, Republican or Democrat, get into office???

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when Bush is in power, and I'm sure libertarians helped get him there in , the rich

[/ QUOTE ] Wait, what? You're calling libertarians the rich? lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was agreeing that in Bush's case in particular, he will transfer wealth to the rich

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe libertarians helped him get there in 2000 because they believed him when he said he supported small government and was against nation building, but if any libertarian ever tells you he thinks Bush is one, make sure to hit him in the face for not even understanding his own policies. And if you think Bush supports a libertarian agenda you need to find out what libertarians support and run that against what Bush actually does.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't put words in my mouth please. Is natedogg not essentially a libertarian? I'm just curious because he earlier this thread offered unsolicited praise for Bush - I would think given that he has turned out to be so anti-libertarian, libertarian types would be a bit slower to praise him (especially to praise him for something he deserves no credit for) - perhaps some libertarians need to see a doctor for schizophrenia.

[ QUOTE ]
Airport regulations, gas substization, regulations that favor big business over eutreaprenueurs and small business, no bid contracts, bridges to nowhere, overpriced military equipment.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe we were actually speaking of income taxes

I'm very much against the government wasting money too

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
You just described the classic logical fallacy called "ad hominem". The example routinely given to illustrate this type of faulty logic is identical to what you just said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

I'm not saying that motive supercedes an argument. However, there are many times when one may not be able to determine with certainty the truth of facts used in an argument or the argument itself, and motive DOES give you a clue as to the likelihood that someone will play loose with the facts.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]

I was agreeing that in Bush's case in particular, he will transfer wealth to the rich

[/ QUOTE ]
And where will the government get all of this money that will be transferred to the rich?

And do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when Bush is in power, and I'm sure libertarians helped get him there, the rich

[/ QUOTE ] You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think more libertarians voted for, Bush or Gore? Bush or Kerry?

[natedogg]

I was not praising bush. I simply point out the *fact* that under Bush, tax revenues are very high so why should we be talking about raising taxes?

Libertarian does not mean "supports the interests of the rich". In fact, few plutocrats are libertarians, every wonder why?

natedogg

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not praising bush. I simply point out the *fact* that under Bush, tax revenues are very high so why should we be talking about raising taxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll give you that (my apologies) - it wasn't that you were trying to praise Bush - you were merely giving a disingenuous reason why taxes shouldn't be raised.