Is John Edwards a complete retard?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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, and motive DOES give you a clue as to the likelihood that someone will play loose with the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]
One reason this is considered a logical fallacy is that it's impossible to know someone's motives unless you can read minds.

And the other reason is that, would you prefer that a politician do the wrong thing with a good motive, or the right thing with a bad motive? I just judge a politician by his actions.

And as a libertarian, I notice that the claim of "being for the rich" is always used anytime a politician even remotely represents my interests (which don't include the well being of rich people). Is that a coincidence, or is the claim made to stir up hatred against all things libertarian?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you disagree with something so obvious the other guy's motives are suspect.

natedogg

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a disingenuous reason that he thinks they're already too high? Or did you mean something else?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

good question - I don't know, from China??

[ QUOTE ]
And do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

his tax cuts were a transfer to the wealthy

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

good question - I don't know, from China??

[ QUOTE ]
And do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

his tax cuts were a transfer to the wealthy

[/ QUOTE ]
A claim isn't evidence. Wild dishonest propaganda by polititians is not evidence either.

The percentage of total income tax revenues paid by the rich is higher after the tax cut than it was before it. Look at the numbers. The numbers are evidence.

And there could be no transfer "to" the wealthy unless there is a source that the money is transfered "from". There is no such source. This entire claim is pure BS. And people believe it because they listen to politicians instead of doing a little research and thinking for themselves.

[TomCollins]

Al, I just gave you $1,000,000.

You didn't get it in the mail? It's because I was going to take it from you but decided not to.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
A claim isn't evidence. Wild dishonest propaganda by polititians is not evidence either.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The percentage of total income tax revenues paid by the rich is higher after the tax cut than it was before it. Look at the numbers. The numbers are evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you seriously claiming, in 2007, that the Bush tax cuts were not a tax cut for the wealthy? please refer to your first quote

[ QUOTE ]
And there could be no transfer "to" the wealthy unless there is a source that the money is transfered "from". There is no such source.

[/ QUOTE ]

if income taxes are cut, someone pays for it - if spending is cut, then the transfer is from whoever would have benefitted from the spending. Borrowing the money (as with running a deficit) simply means that we will have to pay for it later

if tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy, as with Bush's tax cuts, then yes, we have effectively transferred money to the well off from the rest of the population

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
Al, I just gave you $1,000,000.

You didn't get it in the mail? It's because I was going to take it from you but decided not to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your generosity. I can really use all that money you're giving to me out of the kindness of your heart.

So, is that a "refundable credit"? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ] It's a disingenuous reason that he thinks they're already too high? Or did you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the first part of the thread? Look at the link that I posted

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]

if income taxes are cut, someone pays for it - if spending is cut, then the transfer is from whoever would have benefitted from the spending.


[/ QUOTE ]

Al, you are really going to get it. My daughter just realized she paid you $1,000,000 that I let you keep, since now she would have benefited from it.

Orwellean Newspeak at its finest. West, you would make a fine propogandist.