tweakabelle
Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
You dismissed the essay with a series of handwaves. You flat out denied that the republicans cared more about protecting the mega wealthy than anything else until I proved it to you which you then ignored.
You tried to hijack the thread by accusing the Obama administration of war mongering equivalent to the GOP. Now that I've debunked that nonsense the above non sequitur is your total response.
Your intellectual bankruptcy is showing.
WTF is right, Ken. Are you responding to a thread in your own head, or something (maybe what you dreamed it would be when you clicked "new post," and before I showed up)? It's not my fault you decided to start with something thin, vaporous, intellectually dishonest and probably completely self-serving from the author. I've already referred you back to post 13, and how I addressed his "all for the rich," fail, twice now.
I understand your desire now to make this about anything except where you started it. You certainly don't want to address how voting Republican has worked out for the aims of the fundies, and you certainly wouldn't want to get near the cronyism that has been the mark of the administration in how they prefer to use taxation as policy.
Do keep in mind though that I might well have bookmarked your cheerleading of Obama's illegal war, to toss out when you want to squeal about a future Republican not obeying all the forms of the War Powers Act. Maybe if you guys all turn nasty enough, the thread will get pulled, and you'll be safe.
This is the relevant part of your post # 13, Heretic:
"First, that the Republicans care only about the interests of the rich. No. If we want to view things that way, we would have to say that the Repubs care only about the interests of the working rich, the ones still out there producing, building and manufacting, while the Dems only look at the cares and hobbies of the old money and idle rich, the limousine liberals, who step over the homeless man, and quiet the guilt by thinking, "there ought to be a government program." Yes, the horror of Republicans wanting the tax rates low for everyone, while the Democrats prefer the loophole, the subsidy, the bailout, the waiver, and the bad half-billion dollar loan, only to those they deem worthy."
It consists of a a few blatantly false claims (eg that the Dems NOT the Reps defend the tax loopholes of the super-rich) entwined with ideologically-driven garbage (eg. Dems only look at the cares and hobbies of the old money and idle rich, the limousine liberals, who step over the homeless man, and quiet the guilt by thinking, "there ought to be a government program.) and repetition of nonsensical waffle (see the last sentence in particular)
It is intellectual gibberish - it doesn't contain a single relevant FACT; it is full of wild partisan claims, not one of the them supported by evidence of any sort, not even the most tenuous; it doesn't pretend to advance a considered argument. It makes no serious attempt to examine the argument you claim it opposes. In short, pure vapid partisan rhetoric.
If this is your idea of refuting an argument, then best you follow Don Quixote's example and confine yourself to arguing with windmills. On the evidence above, that would be an argument between intellectual equals.
< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/4/2011 10:22:05 PM >
_____________________________
|
RE: An essay everyone should read - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread