If your position isn't very valid, or your too (*)(*)(*)(*) lazy to back it up...

then simply try to invalidate the person debating against you.

This is the new tactic lately by some.

Apply that with a little arrogance, and you can win any debate.

Sadly, this is not true.

If your point of view has validity, then it will stand on its own. The passive aggressive personal attacks trying to widdle away at other peoples arguments and attempting to invalidate them doesn't make your own argument any more valid.

Grow up people.

 

It's not a new tactic at all...


...just sayin'...

 

Well said. I see some lame ass stuff here, presented as debate.

 

It is because many of you don't think. So instead of directly telling you that carried interest, stock options, s-corp dividend carry through are not double taxed since you don't really understand them I try and make you think. It helps to get you thinking about the subject at hand in another fashion because you have failed to analyze it to begin with.

In other words you don't know what you are talking about, and you need to be shown a better way of thinking about it.

 

What do you expect... they're desperate!

*Obaaaaaaama*

 

You really are an arrogant bastard, aren't ya.

 

Its rather difficult arguing with anyone on this forum when the "Current Events" forum is constantly bombarded by people that have "faith beyond a reasonable doubt" that our President was born in Africa (and can't be dissuaded to even question that faith in any way, shape or form), people that have witnessed the Bush tax Cuts destroy the financial foundation of our nation while not producing ANY new jobs, new economic prosperity or anything resembling progress, yet rail on about how important it is to lower taxes once again to make things worse, and people that throw a hissy fit whenever THIS president goes golfing, sleeps more than 7 hours, or actually has the audacity to take Air Force One anywhere for a meeting, rather than using Skype or riding his bicycle (and of course, those same people would defend Bush to their death for any of those things, and they'd vote for him again tomorrow if he ran for office).

Yeah, its unreasonable to have any sort of expectations of the people on this site, especially those that place a thread like this in current events and don't follow the rules of thread posting.

 

No jcalilesiu, I just am from the financial sector and do this stuff for oil and gas now. It is why I have a deeper understanding of it than most, and why I hate to see GOP lies being circulated. They are lying to you and I wish you could see it.

Frankly this stuff is dry and boring, but important.

 

Part of the problem here is the shear volume of posts and the speed at which threads and discussions move. It makes the site more conductive to short and fast responces, rather than lengthy, well thought out, well sourced responces. And fast responces are morely likely to be Ad Hominem attacks and other fallacies.

 

So, this thread is about the confusion on the left about what happened to the economy after 9/11??

The liberal horde thinks that once you have money in the bank you can spend all you want without making any money at all. They must know that that general revenue rose after the Bush tax cuts but not as fast as we were spending on national security, military operations and domestic spending that the dems demanded before military spending could get out of the Senate.

Many people predicted an economic collapse in the days after 9/11 but the strength and confidence that President Bush projected helped us get back on our feet. We had much worse conditions that we have now, as far as pressure of the economy goes. We had all but no air travel, little vacation travel but we made it through because the people saw a strong response to 9/11 that made them feel that they were safe and we were still the strongest nation on the planet.

 

I've asked this question for about 2 years on here, and for some reason, NOT ONE liberal has ever addressed it. Since you're so sure of yourself and your position, I"m sure you'd have no problem in replying.

HOW WAS THE ECONOMY DOING UNDER BUSH, UNTIL DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS?????????????????????????????????????????

 

It was all a house of cards doomed to collapse. A speculatory housing bubble caused by artificially low interest rates, and a stockpile of liar's loans being securitirized by the banks at the expense of depositors.

It was all a facade.

 

What is the "GOP" lying about?

Please tell us a little about you involvement in the oil and gas industry? Have you drilled a deep gas well and handled the problems related with getting that done? How much pressure does it take to fracture a shale formation?

And the dems refused to let one thing be done to address the problem. Frank swore that FM and FM were doing just fine right up until the bottom dropped out and the loans started to fail. One of my wife's good friends that woks for a bank couldn't believe what they had to do to follow the lending rules and we see that those rules were bad for all of us.

 

Thank you. At least you had the balls to give an opinion. Now, two follow up questions:

1. What did this have to do with tax cuts???

2. Who was primarily responsible for the housing bust??? (Hint: it wasn't Bush or the Republicans)

 

Probably works as a clerk in a BP station

 

I am not a rough neck. I remember you are a fracker are you not?

I personally have not drilled anything. I will tell you that I have been involved with lawsuit pertaining to the statewide rule 37 and not directionally bringing in the well back to 467' from the lease. Is that specific enough for you?

 

No, the strength of the Dot.com bubble made Bush a very lucky man, until it burst catastrohpically in 2002 (you must not remember that). Most of our nation was slow moving economically, but insane, unreasonable growth in the tech sector (all of which proved to be false growth) made the bottom line look good.

Once again, Bush was the ONLY president in our nations history to cut taxes in a time of war, and without the short lived tech boom, we would have seen the disastrous results much more clearly. And yes, I think that any revenues coming into the US governmetn should be budgeted and spent, otherwise, they shouldn't collect taxes from me. I trust that they will establish tax levels equal to teh needs of the programs they need to support. Its far more irresponsible to promise that you're going to spend less, take less in, and then spend like a drunken sailor. I want a government that shows us their books (like teh current one is) and makes a case for why we need to pay that budget with our tax revenues. Up until Reagan was president and blindly conned millions of his followers into a flawed belief that has become your political religion, this is how tax rates were created.

Its called responsible government, and it has nothing to do with blindly cutting everything until you balance. Its about a healthy balance between spending and tax rates. That balance is something we've sorely been missing since Bush was elected (and Reagan and Bush 1 as well). Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes to reasonable level while keeping spending balanced. Bush II destroyed all of that by bribing the American people with lower taxes (that clearly did nothing for us economically if you look at jobs rates and the deficit) and tax rebates.

 

I just gave you the reasons for the housing bust. It was Bush and republicans that were in charge when the rates were lowered. Also they did the de-regulation of the banks; signed by Clinton.

So I am surprised you are trying not to blame them with they were so directly at fault.

 

Then I get paid extremely well for my time.

 

Um, yeah, you may want to recheck your 'facts'. lol

 

This is a thread? Why don't you just try PM'ing the person who you're peeved at?

 

This is the leftists' typical course of action! See it here every day!

 

What do the democrats in office have to do with economic cycles? We have a recession EVERY 3-5 years historically. Please read a graph or chart or something about that. Can you please explain to me what legislation enacted by the democrats actually "caused" the recession of 2008?

Lets see here, based on the level of hostility the right offers towards issues, it must have been government spending, right? Well, the Dems from 2006-2008 (pre-bailout) was actually slightly LOWER than the previous 6 years, with no significant economic spending policies enacted (remember, they would have had to get it past teh Senate).

Well, then it must have been the fault of democrats tax policies following the 2006 election right? Except that they didn't raise ANY taxes on anyone following their elections. Still today, tax rates are still at Bush level lows, and our economy still tanked despite that fact.

Oh, thats right, its the Republicans only electable idea and stance. The position that gets them elected over and over and over again without fail because they have a deluded, confused electorate. Its because if the left is in charge, we must all have fear. Unbridled, unctrollable boogey man induced fear. Thats the only thing the Republicans sell (while they rape us with their policies) and they sell it better than anything imagineable. If you take fear away from the average voter and leave policy and history as teh only things to guage, the left would win every election with 80% of the vote, every time.

BOOO!!

 

Please do tell....

 

Well the Wall Street Journal placed it directly on the shoulders of Bawney Fwank.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475110152189446.html

It is a well reasoned article and I agree.