Author Topic: Ok, let's talk brass tax  (Read 5633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2011, 01:35:21 PM »
I gave it anyway.  You misinterpreted cause & effect
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2011, 01:37:53 PM »
How gracious of you

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2011, 01:43:41 PM »
Thanks.  Perhaps now we can move on to actual relevent points, vs all this bandwith you've prioritized in making sure we all know, sirs in particular, that Stossel is a Libertarian
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2011, 03:16:57 PM »
Thanks.  Perhaps now we can move on to actual relevent points, vs all this bandwith you've prioritized in making sure we all know, sirs in particular, that Stossel is a Libertarian

That would be great.

Be sure indicate which parts of your posts are relevant, you know, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding and possible feelings of persecution.
That way when you answer complaints from the left that the GOP doesn't have concrete plans to cut the deficit with a column by a man of unknown party affiliation, that your intent was not to show that the GOP did have a plan but that they could have a plan if they read the man's column.


Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2011, 03:19:14 PM »
Quote
if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
He isn't.

He is to me....John Stossel speaks for many in the GOP that feel the
establishment GOP is too often caving to the elected Left and to the
vast Leftist driven media.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2011, 03:42:13 PM »
Thanks.  Perhaps now we can move on to actual relevent points, vs all this bandwith you've prioritized in making sure we all know, sirs in particular, that Stossel is a Libertarian

That would be great.

Be sure indicate which parts of your posts are relevant, you know, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding and possible feelings of persecution.
That way when you answer complaints from the left that the GOP doesn't have concrete plans to cut the deficit with a column by a man of unknown party affiliation, that your intent was not to show that the GOP did have a plan but that they could have a plan if they read the man's column.


Actually it was pretty clear what was and wasn't relevent to begin with.  You merely took issue with what you believed I was implying, that Stossel was somehow a GOP spokesperson, and then had to hammer a way at that, despite how fast it was demonstrated to have never been the case (can't keep count of how many posts so far, you've devoted to this irrelevancy)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2011, 03:53:50 PM »
Quote
if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
He isn't.

He is to me....John Stossel speaks for many in the GOP that feel the
establishment GOP is too often caving to the elected Left and to the
vast Leftist driven media.

He may very well speak for many in the GOP on subjects on which they agree,that would be an individual preference, but he isn't an official GOP spokesperson or speak for the group as a whole.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2011, 04:10:50 PM »
Dictionary.com: spokes-person   

"a person who speaks for another or for a group"


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spokesperson+
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2011, 04:37:54 PM »
Quote
if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
He isn't.

He is to me....John Stossel speaks for many in the GOP that feel the
establishment GOP is too often caving to the elected Left and to the
vast Leftist driven media.


He may very well speak for many in the GOP on subjects on which they agree,that would be an individual preference, but he isn't an official GOP spokesperson or speak for the group as a whole.

Which again demonstrates where your train went off the tracks, as it relates to predisposing that's what I meant, with your continued questioning of my original quote.  Despite any "vagueness" you are trying to claim on my part, you didn't ask for clarity, you merely went with the predisposed idea, that's what I meant, that Stossel must be some GOP spokesperson, and that his ideas was a Republican plan that needed hashing out

Again, if it were MERELY you trying to be the pleasant information poster, you would have ended your responses, following reply #3.  I'm now responding to reply #36, where you're still referencing an issue that's irrelevent to the points being made by Stossel, though I will concede you're now responding to Cu4
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2011, 04:39:57 PM »
I agree that your first paragraph was not relevant. In fact I don't know why you wrote it.


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2011, 04:41:04 PM »
Dictionary.com: spokes-person   

"a person who speaks for another or for a group"


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spokesperson+

A GOP spokesperson would speak for the GOP. Is the GOP an individual or a group?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2011, 04:46:43 PM »
I agree that your first paragraph was not relevant. In fact I don't know why you wrote it.

And yet, that's what you pounced on, and continued to do so.  and I've already demonstrated the likely "why".  All the while, Stossel's ideas remain relatively untouched by discussion.  Priority apparently needs to be to find something that sirs says, that's wrong, and go with it, regardless of relevancy and/or error in judgement to begin with
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2011, 04:55:45 PM »
Prepare for the Sob Stories (as legitimate as they may be)

--------------------------------
House Republicans move to slash domestic programs

Republicans controlling the House promised Thursday to slash domestic agencies' spending by almost 20 percent in their drive to bring it back to levels in place before President Barack Obama took office.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan announced the move as the first salvo in a battle with Obama as they seek to keep a campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic programs.

The cuts would bring huge changes to agencies used to budget boosts during Obama's first two years in office. The White House has vowed to fight Republicans, saying their plans could lead to widespread furloughs of federal employees and force vulnerable people off of subsidized housing, reduce services in national parks and slash aid to schools and local police and fire departments.

"Washington's spending spree is over," Ryan, R-Wis., said. "The spending limits will restore sanity to a broken budget process and return spending for domestic government agencies to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels."

Republicans made a campaign promise to cut $100 billion from Obama's request for domestic agencies like the Department of Education, for the budget year that began in October. But since the year is under way, they're so far falling short, just $58 billion under the plan released Thursday. They promise to try to fully impose the dramatic cuts during what is sure to be a contentious budget debate this year.

The GOP promise was to reduce spending for domestic agencies whose budgets are set by Congress each year back to levels in place under the last budget approved by former President George W. Bush.

Under the original pledge, the Pentagon could have been awarded Obama's proposed 4 percent, $23 billion increase. Instead, the military budget will grow by significantly less when the Appropriations Committee unveils its proposed budget cap later Thursday.

The $100 billion savings figure is measured against Obama's budget request, but the actual savings would be less since Obama's budget boosts were never approved and the government is operating at 2010 levels. Instead, the savings from domestic programs in making the switch from 2010 to 2008 would be about $86 billion, imposing cuts of 19 percent on average.

And the savings from domestic programs in the year ending Sept. 30 would be even less since Obama's budget boosts were never approved and the government is operating at 2010 levels. Republicans acknowledge they can achieve, at best, $32 billion in saving by the Sept. 30 end of the year once small increases for the security agencies _ the Pentagon and the departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs _ are factored in.

A stopgap spending bill passed in December expires March 4. Enacting a full-year funding bill promises to be a difficult test of the new balance of power in Washington. Republicans control only the House, but Democrats acknowledge that _ with the deficit on pace to hit $1.5 trillion this year _ some spending cuts will have to be made.

"We're not burying our heads on the sand. We recognize that we have to do something," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Obama's most powerful ally on Capitol Hill.

Republicans say some agencies like the FBI, the Indian Health Service and NASA are unlikely to be cut all the way back to pre-Obama levels. But that means other agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, would have to bear even bigger cuts.

Returning to 2008 levels would produce dramatic cuts for many agencies: a 41 percent cut for EPA clean water grants; an 8 percent cut to NASA, a 16 percent cut for the FBI and a 13 percent cut in the operating budget of the national parks.

The hard-charging GOP freshman class _ especially newcomers from Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York and New Hampshire _ may have some second thoughts when confronted with big cuts looming to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, which provides home heating subsidies to the poor.

Republicans in Texas, Florida and Alabama _ where NASA facilities mean thousands of jobs _ are sure to fight against cuts to the space agency. NASA could have to abandon the International Space Station because of the cuts, the White House warns.

Lawmakers in both parties from rural districts are likely to resist what could be an almost 20 percent cut to a program that subsidizes service by smaller airlines to isolated cities and towns like Scottsbluff, Neb., and Burlington, Iowa. Smaller subsidies or tighter rules would probably mean some communities would lose service.

As local school districts cope with budget squeezes, they won't be able to count on the same amount of help from the federal government. Special education grants to states could be cut by $1.4 billion, or 11 percent, forcing hometown school boards to cut services or make up the difference with local funds.


Those evil, cold, uncaring Republicans
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2011, 04:57:47 PM »
Quote
And yet, that's what you pounced on, and continued to do so.

Which is why i asked you to flag the irrelevant portions of your post so that i do not waste my time on them and you don't get the vapors if i mistakenly take them as germane to the topic.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ok, let's talk brass tax
« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2011, 05:49:41 PM »
The germane points were clear by reply #4, and remain so.  You chose to go with the more irrelevent points, believing how I was in error with them.  I would have thought though, the last thread about you erroneously concluding what I supposedly was claiming Bush was saying/implying would have had a finality point to that prediposed tact.  I love the debate and discussions, even when in disagreement, but you really should find another hobby than to try and find error with something sirs posted.  Especially when your conclusions of such an error are grossly in error yourself.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle