Originally Posted by jimmac
As usuual both trumpy and Frank 777 use a tactic not logic to try and win an argument. That's why they stoop to insults and try to discredit the opposition instead of providing adequate support for their supposition.
Yep, all those links are really just personal attacks. Welcome to bizarro world.
It's what has been wrong with the whole approach the republicans have been using so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.
Oh and Frank Bush was president a year before 911 that's why I used that year.
Back then he was just a slacker president. As of 2001 coming here and asking real questions about 911 and how it could have happened ( was Bush's response all it could have been ) got really angry responses like : " Who are you to question the president? "
During Iraq it was much the same but that soon changed ( you do remember groverat was a Bush supporter ) when people realized this war wasn't as advertised. You might say it kind of followed his approval ratings until you get all the way to 2008 where people were ready to just run him out of town on a rail.
One of my favorite responses back then when I questioned the notion of WMD " Well let's see if you feel that way when the mushroom clouds start to sprout in your back yard " or some such hysteria.
After a while there was only a few of you. Those few certainly are loud and annoying.
This reasoning is comical. Starting with the premise that while typing on a forum, we are "loud" and second how being "annoying" somehow stops everyone else from being able to do whatever it is they want to do. Up until around ten days ago, I hadn't posted on here for a month. No one came in and filled the void. I took off during the entire election and even had every supposedly "spamming" post removed. No one crying foul like yourself acted or posted any differently.
You need to stop projecting your problems onto others as a form of personal attack.
Thanks for citing Groverat because if it shows anything it shows that someone can quickly turn on a popular president and thus claiming popularity as a precedent is just bad form. Perhaps you can apply this reasoning to yourself and figure out how to explain if something is right or wrong using facts instead of saying simply "We won, Bush lost, get over it." No one need get over it because those popularity numbers can reverse.
And trumpy :
You are really no authority and certainly not one I'd appeal to.
Let's see you have a conservative blog with your buddies from here ( all well known ).
You come through and lay waste to forums that people have been coming to for years.
You tend to stoop to any tactic to cancel out the opposition.
Your name seems to be Nick. That's all I can be pretty sure about. So why would I trust your word over a real economist?
I've already explained this trumpman ( what a name ). You can be anyone here ( anyone remember MadTOoL and his Truth train or Miss Tron? ) so that's why we use sources of authority to support our argument. In a way it makes us all equal ( something I'm sure you don't like ).
Well that is an awful lot of you's... for someone who claims such low tactics of others, half your posts always deal with the poster. The reality is that when yourself and others called down the mods, they informed you that posts like the one above aren't arguments and are in fact huge ad-homs. Without the ability to use ad-homs and being left to use arguments, most left because they don't have any arguments, only ad-homs.
You ask why you should trust my arguments and again fall back on background which is nothing but a logical fallacy.
It is sad, sad, sad. You do understand that I could actually BE Paul Krugman typing to you right now and that wouldn't make a statement right or wrong. To claim that my point can't be right or wrong because you can't prove or endorse who I am just highlights the lack of logic.
We are on planet Earth.
Jimmac: How can we be sure that is true? All I know is that I can say your handle wrong and your first name.
That lack of logic is just laughable.
You ask how you can trust my word while failing to realize that I ask you to do just the opposite. I am asking you not to take anyone at their word and examine the facts instead. I present facts. If you don't like those facts, add your own. If you don't like the arguments I present, then present your own. I would never declare anything to be right "because I say so or because so and so says so." That is a logical fallacy.
Do you comprehend that?
Finally in appealing to your requests that are not logical I cited Laurence J. Kotlikoff with credentials as follows. He is a professor of economics at Boston University, fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and former senior economist, Presidents Council of Economic Advisers. He has published extensively in the field of public finance and tax reform, and is a leading scholar on the generational accounting of social security. He has written that the economic future is bleak for the United States without tax reform, health care reform, and Social Security reform. Kotlikoff is a supporter of the FairTax proposal, contributing to research of plan's effects and the required rate for revenue neutrality. He was an economic adviser to formerly-Democratic candidate Mike Gravel during the 2008 Democratic Primary.
The classic response to such cited credentials, "We all know" you really don't think this Trumptman. "We all know" you hate boomers and finally "We all know" Republicans have been doing "this" for years and lost so get over it.
I do cite the facts presented by people. I will post links if I feel they are making the same point I want only more concise and thus better. That still isn't saying they are right because of who they happen to be though but noting when they give a better presentation of the facts.
Well one of the reasons I tend to give Krugman more credit is one's a glorified stock broker the other's a nobelaureat and professor of economics.
Give people credit for being right. Anything else is illogical. Kotlikoff has plenty of credentials to his credit and I cited his book which people on this board promptly ignored and decided they would rather discuss whether I "hate" old people/boomers.
Again, ad-homs like that should be gone. The board is better without them. I'd rather read one poster who adds information than 30 who add stupid pictures and ad-homs.