Looking for Republican Party apologetics

[Geriatrix]

Ever read Atlas Shrugged?

The reps and their support base, to me, resemble the looters and favor seekers much more than the dems.
Have a look at which states take more from the federal budgets than they give. You'll see lots of red.

Also most of the richest "producers" in the US are run by Dems executives. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Berkshire Hathaway(AFAIK) to name some of the obvious ones. I'm sure you could find counter examples but Rands books do not point to Republicans at all.

 

[Arthur]

The reps and their support base, to me, resemble the looters and favor seekers much more than the dems.
Have a look at which states take more from the federal budgets than they give. You'll see lots of red.

Also most of the richest "producers" in the US are run by Dems executives. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Berkshire Hathaway(AFAIK) to name some of the obvious ones. I'm sure you could find counter examples but Rands books do not point to Republicans at all.

True.
America hasn't been a capitalist country for ages.
My point was only in response to those who think the rich are unfairly under-taxed. You can't forever have fewer and fewer people giving more and more without tax-fatigue setting in. Or worse, production fatigue.

 

[Geriatrix]

True.
America hasn't been a capitalist country for ages.
My point was only in response to those who think the rich are unfairly under-taxed. You can't forever have fewer and fewer people giving more and more without tax-fatigue setting in. Or worse, production fatigue.

Agreed. I blame politicians in general though. What I do find scary about Atlas Shrugged is how it relates to this country. Its seems much more relevant.

 

[TonyHawk]

Is that you malema?

love it

 

[WilD_CaT]

Wow, a fellow anarchist/libertarian! I am not alone/a freak!

Hehehehe. Don't mind Wizard...a lot of his posts on other issues are pretty good and well thought out, but when it comes to American politics it is like he is a different person.

Wizard, I think the point Arthur was trying to make is this:

The assumption made is that there is a fixed pool of funds. Either you need to tax the rich in order to fund the tax cut in the middle-class, or you need to tax the middle-class to allow the rich to get tax breaks.

What Arthur was trying to get you to do, is to ask why both "classes" can't get tax breaks. Leaving the money in the hands of the people, leaving them to choose where to the money goes. Why must government have the money, why must the state be the one to choose where to spend it, why is the state more "knowledgable" than individuals bearing in mind the fact that individuals value different things in different degrees.

Let's have some common sense here, the state will spend it in a manner that makes them look good, I.E. it allows them to get more votes. Since there is no profit on the construction of roads, infrastructure etc.(As the state is not a business) you cannot measure if any of those projects are increasing overall wealth or not but the state gets to show some "statistics" about how many jobs they created, completely ignoring the fact that leaving the money in the hands of people means that it would have either been spent (Increasing demand for present goods, thus potentially securing current jobs and creating more) or been saved and invested which makes capital available for companies to potentially build more factories (More jobs) buy better machines (More jobs for manufactures - assuming it is made in US).

Even if the various state projects create more jobs, you cannot measure the potential "loss" of jobs that would've been made in the private sector, so you cannot know if the project was overall a success in creating jobs (If thats the criteria you are using to measure success).

Arthur basically wants you to dig deeper and ask more questions.

 

[WilD_CaT]

When last did the Republican Party in the US favour small government in practice?

Correct, most of the people who call themselves conservatives, simply are not conservative.

Most people who call themselves liberals, don't believe in freedom of the individual, what I like to call liberty.

 

[WilD_CaT]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

As in, 1,000 times one million dollars. All this political jabber about giving middle-class ...

... Americans a tax cut. Thousands of feds have been giving themselves one all along -- unofficially. And these tax scofflaws include more than three dozen folks who work for the president with that newly decorated Oval Office.

Interesting article...

For a breakdown of how much taxes state employees owe, the state...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/irs-federal-workers/index.html

And at the bottom you will see the source as the IRS.

It seems being a politician or a state employee is one way of getting special treatment and flouting laws (Albeit stupid ones) and it doesn't only happen in SA!

 

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

I find it rather amusing that W1z4rd likes to thing of himself as 'informed' and 'enlightened' as he doesn't watch Fox News. And yet he readily admits he watches lots of BBC.

Well, well...

BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past.
The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.
But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.
He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.
His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz0zX9Y6cmA

You are definitely no more 'enlightened' than the average Republican voter.

 

[noxibox]

America hasn't been a capitalist country for ages.

Probably not for the last 200 years.

 

[zippy]

I find it rather amusing that W1z4rd likes to thing of himself as 'informed' and 'enlightened' as he doesn't watch Fox News. And yet he readily admits he watches lots of BBC.

Well, well...




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz0zX9Y6cmA

You are definitely no more 'enlightened' than the average Republican voter.

The BBC World News is not really representative if the BBC referred to by the article. I doubt any significant numbers of Brits watch it extensively , tbh. The local channels is where all the content is which covers British politics. You dont get the half of it on BBC World News. And the BBC had a really bad relationship with Labour govt. The Labour govt had complianed if their pro Tory stance many times.

The daily mail is quite free and easy with it's headlines. words like "massive", "huge" are common.

I have watched Fox. It's quite a painful experience. They shout at you. The message gets lost in the noise, but I guess it's aimed at people who liked to yelled at. Whatever floats your boat

 

[w1z4rd]

I find it rather amusing that W1z4rd likes to thing of himself as 'informed' and 'enlightened' as he doesn't watch Fox News. And yet he readily admits he watches lots of BBC.

Well, well...




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz0zX9Y6cmA

You are definitely no more 'enlightened' than the average Republican voter.

Um dude, I said I predominantly watch BBC, I watch a lot of FOX (comedy reasons... I mean, theyre the biggest news joke in the world atm.. seriously how dumb do you have to be to think they are credible?), MSNBC, Russia Today (to get a fix on Russian propaganda) and Al Jazeera (they cover stories in crappy 3rd world countries more in depth than the larger broadcasters) as well. You really need to stop making up stuff you know?

BBC... lol.. left wing bias... just peachy. 9/10 for lameness Chris. Gratz!

 

[w1z4rd]

Wow, a fellow anarchist/libertarian! I am not alone/a freak!

Hehehehe. Don't mind Wizard...a lot of his posts on other issues are pretty good and well thought out, but when it comes to American politics it is like he is a different person.

No, I just dont agree with you on everything, so where you think my posts are thought out you probally agree with me, when you think I am a different person its when you dont agree with what I said. Thats understandable but theres no reason to act like an ass and get all insulting about it.

Wizard, I think the point Arthur was trying to make is this:

The assumption made is that there is a fixed pool of funds. Either you need to tax the rich in order to fund the tax cut in the middle-class, or you need to tax the middle-class to allow the rich to get tax breaks.

What Arthur was trying to get you to do, is to ask why both "classes" can't get tax breaks. Leaving the money in the hands of the people, leaving them to choose where to the money goes. Why must government have the money, why must the state be the one to choose where to spend it, why is the state more "knowledgable" than individuals bearing in mind the fact that individuals value different things in different degrees.

Let's have some common sense here, the state will spend it in a manner that makes them look good, I.E. it allows them to get more votes. Since there is no profit on the construction of roads, infrastructure etc.(As the state is not a business) you cannot measure if any of those projects are increasing overall wealth or not but the state gets to show some "statistics" about how many jobs they created, completely ignoring the fact that leaving the money in the hands of people means that it would have either been spent (Increasing demand for present goods, thus potentially securing current jobs and creating more) or been saved and invested which makes capital available for companies to potentially build more factories (More jobs) buy better machines (More jobs for manufactures - assuming it is made in US).

Even if the various state projects create more jobs, you cannot measure the potential "loss" of jobs that would've been made in the private sector, so you cannot know if the project was overall a success in creating jobs (If thats the criteria you are using to measure success).

Arthur basically wants you to dig deeper and ask more questions.

Understand his point but to me its wrong. Wealthier people need to be taxed more. End.

Ive digged pretty deep, Ive thought about the resources that a really rich person uses and Ive read history and saw what built the US into the most powerful nation and what caused it to fall from grace. All I see you two doing is wanting to give people who have billions of dollars tax breaks, where they can afford not to have them, and the US can not afford not to have the tax. Im sorry you disagree with me on that, but that doesnt mean ure right and Im wrong. I honestly have little respect for Arthurs posts... he is a blatant apologetic. Though you I take more seriously.

Simple fact that you need to accept with me. The rich need to be taxed more. Im not going to be changing my stance on that.

 

[zippy]

Um dude, I said I predominantly watch BBC, I watch a lot of FOX (comedy reasons... I mean, theyre the biggest news joke in the world atm.. seriously how dumb do you have to be to think they are credible?), MSNBC, Russia Today (to get a fix on Russian propaganda) and Al Jazeera (they cover stories in crappy 3rd world countries more in depth than the larger broadcasters) as well. You really need to stop making up stuff you know?

BBC... lol.. left wing bias... just peachy. 9/10 for lameness Chris. Gratz!

Chris has not seen Jeremy Paxman interview a Labour MP on BBC Newsnight. The only difference between that show and the Spanish Inquisition is that MP walked out alive, in a fashion.

 

[w1z4rd]

Chris has not seen Jeremy Paxman interview a Labour MP on BBC Newsnight. The only difference between that show and the Spanish Inquisition is that MP walked out alive, in a fashion.

Dont take what Chris says too seriously. He is a hoot.

 

[Fudzy]

I have watched Fox. It's quite a painful experience. They shout at you. The message gets lost in the noise, but I guess it's aimed at people who liked to yelled at. Whatever floats your boat

They're quite classy too:

Fox & Friends shows map of 9-11 victim's "body parts found 348 feet" from proposed Islamic center

 

[Ou grote]

Seems COSATU have something in common with one of the American parties.

Tax the super rich, says Cosatu
September 15 2010 at 11:23AM

The government should tax the "super rich" and play a more "aggressive role" in the economy, Cosatu suggests in its new growth path for South Africa.

Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said yesterday South Africa was in crisis, and a new growth path was needed to rescue the country's "dysfunctional" economy.

"We continue to hang political freedom around our necks, but the reality is we have hardly touched the structural crisis at the economic level," he said, launching the federation's discussion document at the University of Johannesburg.

"Unemployment has been worsening - the cold reality is that we are sitting with a worsening crisis, not an improving situation. A quarter of the population lives on social grants that the government provides ... we should move out of the situation where most of the people have to rely on government to survive ... it's a crisis, pointing to the dysfunctionality at the core of our economy."

The document proposed "redistributive tax interventions" including the introduction of a tax category for the "super rich" and a "solidarity tax" to cap the earnings of the top 10 percent and accelerate those of the lowest 10 percent.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100915110341116C324194

 

[w1z4rd]

Seems COSATU have something in common with one of the American parties.



http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100915110341116C324194

I saw that, and I was wondering if someone would use it as a logical fallacy in this thread. I was almost pretty sure someone was ganna use it thought I expected it from the regular tea baggers and not really you. I was right... blerry COSATU

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] Instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are often false as well.[1] Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.
A common example of the fallacy in action is the following: "The Nazis favored eugenics, therefore eugenics is wrong."[1][2] However, the ethical debate over eugenics is not directly connected with Hitler or the Nazis in particular. Both eugenics and criticism of it considerably predate both Hitler and the Nazi party.
Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

 

[Ou grote]

I saw that, and I was wondering if someone would use it as a logical fallacy in this thread. I was almost pretty sure someone was ganna use it thought I expected it from the regular tea baggers and not really you. I was right... blerry COSATU


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Ja, I is dome enough for that.
Maybe i kan get a job there.
I got 25% for woodwork.

 

[Alan]

Also most of the richest "producers" in the US are run by Dems executives. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Berkshire Hathaway(AFAIK) to name some of the obvious ones. I'm sure you could find counter examples but Rands books do not point to Republicans at all.

Wait what

Dems are the super rich masters of exploitative bloodsucking corporations.....

I find it rather amusing that W1z4rd likes to thing of himself as 'informed' and 'enlightened' as he doesn't watch Fox News. And yet he readily admits he watches lots of BBC.

In the past four weeks there have been two remarkable changes in the public attitude to the BBC. The first and most newsworthy one was precipitated by the faked trailer of the Queen walking out of a photographic portrait session with Annie Leibovitz.

It was especially damaging because the licence fee is based on a public belief that the BBC offers a degree of integrity and impartiality which its commercial competitors cannot achieve.

But in the longer term I believe that the second change is even more significant. It started with the BBC’s own report on impartiality that effectively admitted to an institutional “liberal” bias among programme makers. Previously these accusations had been dismissed as a right-wing rant, but since the report was published even the BBC’s allies seem to accept it.

Seems COSATU have something in common with one of the American parties.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100915110341116C324194

Rubbish it's clear that's FOX news propaganda as Fazda would say...

COSATU, SACP and the ANC are Republican fanboys. :erm:

 

[w1z4rd]

Ja, I is dome enough for that.
Maybe i kan get a job there.
I got 25% for woodwork.

I thought we were talking about COSATU and not the ANCYL? I dont understand the relevance of your comment. I think I need to watch more of the prophet Glen Beck on Fox to get home skooled right.