tweakabelle
Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If you feel you're up to it (I'd hate to strain such limited intellectual resources) you might like to link to some credible evidence to support, for example, this claim:
" 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" which you insist is a "a very real face in our political scene".
Please remember that your claim refers to Dems stepping over "homeless men", so no evidence about homeless women please. I must admit I am at a loss as to studies/evidence about the Dems attitude towards the "cares and hobbies of the old money and idle rich". But I'll keep an open mind until after I consider carefully such evidence as you present.
Oh that is cute, Tweak. How cleverly you snip to twist. Let's sum up. Your standard of proof is that I provide literal evidence of what I've already said is a caricature, and then you heighten your standard by replacing "from" with "is" where you trim the quote. Then you demand to be taken seriously. I'd say you are projecting on the mental disturbances...
You do know what you can do with that, right? Google "Chardonnay Socialist," and get over yourself. If my posting style is so troubling for you, do feel free to not peer in when you see my open window.
I'll make an effort to clarify my point for you, in the context you danced around. The author makes the assertion that, "The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors." This, he says, is the first plank of the three "true" tenets of the Republican platform. The evidence he produces for the claim is strictly related to tax rates, though. That's it. He has the Republican position on tax rates as the sole reason to make his declaration.
Getting from one to the other is quite a leap. It sort of leaves out a great many issues where the Repubs take firm positions. Vouchers so poor children in horrible public schools can go to a private school, and maybe have a shot at breaking out of the cycle of poverty and dependency, for example. Gun rights. How many issues might Congress address that where the rich are not some massive monolith? My local guy thinks that people who like to ride dirt bikes should be able to go out and do it. (I suppose someone who wanted to could argue that those things just benefit the gunmakers, wealthy private school owners, and dirt bike manufacturers, or that the whole list is just feedstock for the profits of big oil, but that wouldn't be someone who I'm going engage seriously with.)
Hence, I responded that if we took his view, we would then have say... But you trimmed those bits out in your snips, so you probably already knew that.
Our fire season has gotten rolling here. Not the best time of year. The sunsets can be spectacular, though.
Here's the full paragraph:
"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."
As of yet you have failed to justify a single claim in it.
In fact, you have retreated from its central claim: that the Reps tax policy cares about some 'working people' while the Dems only cares about "old money and idle rich". You're now insisting that we all pretend to ignore it, in its entirety, on the grounds that it's a caricature.
It is refreshing to see that you are actually capable of engaging the issues when you put your mind to it. Engaging them successfully is, on the evidence to date, beyond your talents but that's a start.
So are we to disregard everything you said as an indefensible 'caricature'? Despite your insistence that the caricature reflects "a very real face in our political scene"? These claims are mutually exclusionary - they cannot both be true. If something is "real" it can't be a caricature can it?
Your thinking is so muddled you're contradicting yourself. Your evidence is still non-existent. Yet your claims are as grandiose - and as stupid - as ever.
There is still not a shred of evidence to conclude that your entire post is anything other than false ideologically-driven bullshit. Why do you feel the need to present such BS to these boards continually? Stuff so abysmally cretinous that not even you can defend it. Why do have such contempt for the people who read your posts? Do you really think that someone who continually posts such garbage as you do is superior in any way? How arrogant is that?
If you have a serious point to make - then make it and back it up with evidence or logical argument. Stop subjecting us to the relentless drivel, cock-eyed delusions and pathetic propaganda such as your posts above.
Stay away from those bushfires for me. They are not any one's friend. Next time you're enjoying one of your spectacular sunsets, please have a little think about the value of harmony.
< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/5/2011 6:57:16 PM >
_____________________________
|
RE: An essay everyone should read - 
Profile
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