Democrats want to raise taxes — but only on red states

[fossten]

Democrats want to raise taxes — but only on red states!

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
08/04/10 1:25 PM EDT

In today’s Wall Street Journal, they blow the lid off of a rather shocking proposal by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and four other members of New York’s House caucus:

One irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1 is that the it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for pro-tax Democrats.

Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports. Mr. Nadler’s bill would “require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average.”

In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act.

Hmmm. Why is it so expensive to live in New York? Oh yeah:

That point about “reality” and the tax code could certainly use some fleshing out, but leave that aside. A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things.

Why should someone in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka be penalized because New York and California impose destructive policies? Mr. Nadler also conveniently forgets that the federal tax code already subsidizes high-cost states through the deductibility of state and local income and property taxes.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...nly-on-red-states-99954334.html#ixzz0vkuvNEkn

 

[FIND]

That point about “reality” and the tax code could certainly use some fleshing out, but leave that aside. A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things.

The major reason for a higher cost of living in those areas is the high population density, which means more demand for space. Space for development and businesses cost more, therefor that cost is passed on to the consumer. On top of that, there is a higher financial risk living in an area like that due to higher rates of crime or accidents/whatever, therefore insurance costs more as well. Due to the high cost of living, employers pay their employees more, which gives them more expenses they need to pass onto their consumer. Their consumers in turn go to their employers and demand higher wages to meet the high cost of living. On top of that, nearly everything consumed by those cities has to be shipped into the city , such as meat, dairy, building materials, whereas a small town like Omaha exists central to a rural area, and can offset the cost of items that are not able to be procured locally, though you will still find that grapes or oranges for instance are far cheaper in San Francisco than in Omaha, NE. Since Omaha is small, transportation is easier as well, whereas in a metropolitan area such as New York, the logistics of transporting good from one part of town to another can take on a life of its own. Taxes, while high, have very little to do with the cost of living in those areas. Just think though, sales tax in Omaha is 1.5 cents higher than the state tax if I recall correctly, however the nearby city of Lincoln, NE has a similar or in some cases slightly higher cost of living. The sales tax in Council Bluffs, which is only separated from Omaha by the Missouri river is half a cent lower than it is in Omaha, but the cost of living in Council Bluffs is significantly lower. They are just isolated examples of inflation. Your dollar is worth less there than it is in Omaha.

I appreciate the authors assessment of this, however there is too great an effort to put a spin on this story. Minnesota votes dem, but their cost of living is VERY low, about the same as Red states like Nebraska and South Dakota. Many states that are traditionally battle ground states will be hit harder by that tax methodology than higher cost of living states like California and New York. This does not appear to be a method of taking money out of the pockets of Republicans while satiating Democrats, and if it is, it is an EXTREMELY poorly planned one, as it will hurt them far more in places where they cannot afford to be hurt.

 

[shagdrum]

The major reason for a higher cost of living in those areas is the high population density, which means more demand for space.

Actually, economic studies have confirmed that, when it comes to land use and housing, it is excessive regulation that leads to the high cost of living. In fact, that is the only explanation that makes any economic sense.

 

[fossten]

This does not appear to be a method of taking money out of the pockets of Republicans while satiating Democrats, and if it is, it is an EXTREMELY poorly planned one, as it will hurt them far more in places where they cannot afford to be hurt.

Yeah sure, just like the majority of GM and Chrysler dealers shut down by Obama weren't run by whites and Republicans.

 

[FIND]

I forgot to note, of course income tax would be the same between Omaha and Lincoln. Income tax is similar in Iowa and Minnesota as well, where as South Dakota has NO state income tax. Nebraska has the highest wheel tax in the area, and property tax rates are similar among all the urban areas in these states. Just wanted to clarify that cause I was kinda drunk last night and forgot to note that.

Actually, economic studies have confirmed that, when it comes to land use and housing, it is excessive regulation that leads to the high cost of living. In fact, that is the only explanation that makes any economic sense.

No. I don't want to get into it on this issue, but this is just horribly wrong. Now, aside from your apparent wanting to pretend supply and demand economics don't exist so that you can make a convenient argument, you can make some links, but it is just coincidence. More populated areas tend to have heavier regulations, this is a consequence of the population density. If anything you could say that a climate of higher regulation is spawned by the higher cost of living, not the other way around. No, I am not interested in seeing some blog, essay or other propaganda writing that suggests otherwise. If you had an actual economic study that, idk, made use of facts, I would be interested in reading that. Otherwise, don't bother responding, I am not arguing this with you and this is my final statement on this particular matter unless you have more compelling evidence.

Yeah sure, just like the majority of GM and Chrysler dealers shut down by Obama weren't run by whites and Republicans.

What does that have to do with taxes? Also, I betcha most car dealerships are run by whites, and strangely enough, I betcha most are owned by republicans too. That point however is moot, since this is also a matter of more basic economics. The places these manufactures are losing money on their dealership franchises are in less populace areas, where as urban centers like New York and LA do not have the same problems. Drive around South Dakota some time, and ask yourself how much business some of these lots in these tiny towns must be getting.

Besides, my point still stands. If this was in fact an effort to attack red states, it would hurt Democrats more anyways, since areas that are typical battleground states would also be troubled by this bill more than blue "strongholds." Also, as I pointed out, cost of living in Omaha..... kinda the same as in Minneapolis. What is this bill doing to save voters in Minnesota who generally vote Democrat? Or are they content with punishing Minnesota for its more conservative values than the coastal states?

 

[fossten]

What does that have to do with taxes? Also, I betcha most car dealerships are run by whites, and strangely enough, I betcha most are owned by republicans too. That point however is moot, since this is also a matter of more basic economics. The places these manufactures are losing money on their dealership franchises are in less populace areas, where as urban centers like New York and LA do not have the same problems. Drive around South Dakota some time, and ask yourself how much business some of these lots in these tiny towns must be getting.

Smoke--->Fire. You can try to spin the reasoning behind his words, but come on - would he really come out and say, "We want to punish those red states out there" - that's absurd. But the concept isn't absurd given the current political climate. Democrats cannot come right out and state their agenda, or they wouldn't keep seats in Congress. They have to obfuscate and lie to the people to get elected. Thus - Obama stating he would cut taxes (LIE) and wouldn't raise taxes (LIE) for those making over $250k - errr - $200k - errr - $150k - errr - $120k, etc. ad infinitum.

Also, you really believe that Obama would have closed dealerships if 88% of them donated money to Democrats?

I was simply citing another, previous example of thug politics, of which this tax increase for only certain states is but another recent case.

It's right there in front of you if you take off the blinders and use your common sense. Do I really need to cite every single thuggish tactic Obama has used since taking office to bolster my claim for you?

 

[FIND]

Smoke--->Fire.

Also, you really believe that Obama would have closed dealerships if 88% of them donated money to Democrats?

I was simply citing another, previous example of thug politics, of which this tax increase for only certain states is but another recent case.

No, there is not a political agenda there, you are citing coincidence. This was just instruction to cut off liabilities for businesses deep in debt who begged the government for money to save them from their own bad business practices. These manufacturers agreed to the terms of the loans. This is a typical reorganization much like any business would see if they went through bankruptcy. I see no evidence to suggest political contributions would have had anything to do with what dealerships were shut down. There were no instructions from the white house for individual dealerships.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, these articles are sounding a lot more like the propaganda that the workers party in Germany published than serious journalism.

 

[fossten]

No, there is not a political agenda there, you are citing coincidence. This was just instruction to cut off liabilities for businesses deep in debt who begged the government for money to save them from their own bad business practices. These manufacturers agreed to the terms of the loans. This is a typical reorganization much like any business would see if they went through bankruptcy. I see no evidence to suggest political contributions would have had anything to do with what dealerships were shut down. There were no instructions from the white house for individual dealerships.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, these articles are sounding a lot more like the propaganda that the workers party in Germany published than serious journalism.

Not true - the dealerships were not closed down based on profitability, but partly based on race and gender.

Once again, you're being dismissive without considering or even bothering to rebut specific points I've raised.

Keep trying.

Oh, and nice appeal to ridicule - Alinsky would be pleased.

 

[FIND]

Not true - the dealerships were not closed down based on profitability, but partly based on race and gender.

Once again, you're being dismissive without considering or even bothering to rebut specific points I've raised.

Keep trying.

Profitability was the primary concern, I won't say the ONLY concern. There is a hinting at the standard equal opportunity (advantage for race or gender) policies, yes, but as you yourself said, it was only based partly on that, but, in that situation, there is no consideration to political bias or political contributions. That is the same twisted bureaucratic behavior that you see with anything connected with the government. Any link to political bias is sketchy at best. Once again, you are talking about a market segment in which 88% of its political contributions went to the republicans. I'm sure independents and other political parties got their share too, but, it is a safe bet that a majority of female and minority owners ALSO donated to republican causes. Also, the minority/woman issue was only a consideration used as a tie breaker between one dealership and another. It is not like they ordered a highly profitable dealership to close in favor of a minority owned dealership that was bleeding money away from GM or Chrysler. They didn't close profitable dealerships to bolster sales in unprofitable female owned dealerships.

Also, these articles keep trying to draw a link to party politics by saying that most of the closures were in rural areas where the vote is primarily Republican. But, as I said before, this is where the money was being lost anyways. I defy you to explain to me how GM can make money franchising a huge number of dealerships in rural communities with populations under 2000, especially since this dealership will be competing with dealerships in surrounding communities and sometimes others within the community. Honestly, have you ever been to rural nebraska, south dakota, Minnesota, Iowa or one of those areas? You do understand how few people live here right?

I am not trying to be dismissive, but there is nothing aside from circumstantial evidence, and even then you can only make a link when you ignore some of the obvious facts of this matter. There is just no reason to believe that this matter was motivated by the voting preference or by who they donate their money to.

 

[fossten]

Profitability was the primary concern, I won't say the ONLY concern.

No, it wasn't. As I've already shown, there were many profitable dealerships that were closed down.

There is a hinting at the standard equal opportunity (advantage for race or gender) policies, yes, but as you yourself said, it was only based partly on that, but, in that situation, there is no consideration to political bias or political contributions.

There you go, both acknowledging and dismissing my point at the same time.

That is the same twisted bureaucratic behavior that you see with anything connected with the government. Any link to political bias is sketchy at best. Once again, you are talking about a market segment in which 88% of its political contributions went to the republicans.

You still haven't read the link I provided, nor have you answered my question: What if 88% of the dealerships had contributed to Democrats - would GM have closed them down?

I'm sure independents and other political parties got their share too, but, it is a safe bet that a majority of female and minority owners ALSO donated to republican causes. Also, the minority/woman issue was only a consideration used as a tie breaker between one dealership and another. It is not like they ordered a highly profitable dealership to close in favor of a minority owned dealership that was bleeding money away from GM or Chrysler. They didn't close profitable dealerships to bolster sales in unprofitable female owned dealerships.

They did close profitable dealerships. Thanks for admitting that. It only takes a high school level critical thinker or an intellectually honest person to connect the dots from here.

Also, these articles keep trying to draw a link to party politics by saying that most of the closures were in rural areas where the vote is primarily Republican. But, as I said before, this is where the money was being lost anyways. I defy you to explain to me how GM can make money franchising a huge number of dealerships in rural communities with populations under 2000, especially since this dealership will be competing with dealerships in surrounding communities and sometimes others within the community. Honestly, have you ever been to rural nebraska, south dakota, Minnesota, Iowa or one of those areas? You do understand how few people live here right?

Profit is profit. You're using a red herring - population centers - where there is no evidence that this was a reason, and still DISMISSING the REALITY that many of the dealerships closed were PROFITABLE. Furthermore, you haven't read the TARP audit I linked, or you'd see that I've provided evidence that GM did everything wrong.

I am not trying to be dismissive

Clearly you are succeeding - why not TRY NOT to be dismissive and see how far you get.

, but there is nothing aside from circumstantial evidence

What is this, a court of law? Since when does circumstantial evidence not count for anything? That's preposterous. Circumstantial evidence is extremely reliable and very strong. In fact, it takes precedence over eyewitness evidence due to the unreliability of human error. You're just choosing to interpret the evidence I've provided (and you haven't read) in favor of Obama. I'm curious - can he do anything wrong in your eyes? You are, of course, free to post all day long the wonderful things he is accomplishing in leading this country back to prosperity. The paucity of such posts actually undercuts your credibility in that you only show up to defend him, doggedly, and never tout his accomplishments. Then, in the process, you insult the person you're debating by implying he's a Nazi.

, and even then you can only make a link when you ignore some of the obvious facts of this matter. There is just no reason to believe that this matter was motivated by the voting preference or by who they donate their money to.

There are reasons to believe this. You are just choosing to dismiss them out of hand with no alternative evidence of your own.

 

[shagdrum]

No. I don't want to get into it on this issue, but this is just horribly wrong. Now, aside from your apparent wanting to pretend supply and demand economics don't exist so that you can make a convenient argument: You can make some links, but it is just coincidence.

As expected you simply dismiss any argument that doesn't logically line up with your leftist worldview; empirical facts and truth be damned...

Here is are some points that economist Thomas Sowell made in his book, Economic Facts And Fallacies:

As one economic study pointed out: "The population of Las Vegas almost tripled between 1980 and 2000, but the real median housing price did not change". However, the average price of houses in Palo Alto, California, nearly quadrupled in one decade without any increase in population at all. The difference is that severe building restrictions began in Palo Alto during that decade - the 1970's - but not in Las Vegas, where builders could simply construct new homes as the demand for housing increased. But not one new home was built in Palo Alto during the decade when its housing prices nearly quadrupled.

A similar pattern showing housing prices affected more by building restrictions than by increased demand for housing was shown in New York City, where "tens of thousands of new units were built in Manhattan during the 1950's whild prices remained flat." In later years, especially after severe building restrictions began in the 1970's, that all changed: "In spite of skyrocketing prices, the housing stock has grown by less then 10 percent since 1980" in Manhattan, according to an article in an economcs journal 25 years later. Moreover, the proportion of new housing units in buildings 20 stories tall and higher, which had been increasing in Manhattan from the beginning of the twentieth century until 1970, suddenly reversed and began a decades-long decline.​

I wrote a paper this spring on the origins of the Community Reinvestment Act for an Urban Economics class I was taking. Here is a relevant excerpt that touches on this issue:

The Demographia [International Housing Affordability] Survey points out that five of the six least affordable housing markets are in the United States. Those markets (including median multiples) are; Los Angeles, CA (11.5), Salinas, CA (10.9), San Francisco, CA (10.8), Honolulu, HI (10.3) and San Diego, CA (10.0). Of those five, four are from California. In fact, if you look at the table of least affordable housing markets in the survey, the United States shows up 16 times. All, but four of those markets from the United States are in California; the others being Honolulu, HI (10.3), West Palm Beach, FL (7.1), New York, NY-NJ,CT-PA (7.0) and Boston, MA-NH (6.1). However, of the top twenty most affordable housing markets, the United States has fourteen.

...A study by Randal O’Toole points out that in fact the housing prices in many of those “least affordable” areas were generally on par with the nation as a whole until the 1970’s . In that study, Mr. O’Toole confronts a few of the explanations for this disparity between most of the country and these “least affordable” places to live.
One possible explanation is that rising incomes could lead to rising home prices. However, O’Toole points out that places like Houston and Dallas actually had abnormally high increases in average income but house prices stayed at or below the national average. As O’Toole puts it:

Dallas has consistently maintained family incomes about 10 percent above the US average while it’s housing prices are generally lower than the US average ​

...Mr. O’Toole finds a statistically significant correlation between these “least affordable” areas and heavier housing restrictions, or “smart growth” policies. As he puts it:

In most cases, the decade in which housing markets became unaffordable closely follow the approval of state growth-management laws or restrictive local plans.​

The fact is that "smart growth" policies and other government restrictions on housing, construction, land use, etc. that became in vogue during the 1970's are primarily what produced the differences in costs of living (at least in the housing market). These restrictions were (and are) at their worst in areas dominated by leftist politics, primarily at the local and state levels. In regulating, land use, housing, construction, etc., the government is handicapping supply and insuring that it cannot keep up with rising demand.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence
-John Adams​

 

[shagdrum]

As to the dealership closing thing, this issue has already been discussed on this forum, specifically in this thread. There is some relevant information in that thread that would better inform any serious discussion of the issue aimed at truth and understanding...

 

[FIND]

Shag, I told you, I am not debating that with you unless you want to provide actual proof or facts. I don't care what essays you have written in class, nor do I care about some agenda driven propaganda. Also, I don't really care about the other thread, I am just addressing what Foss is talking about. If you don't want to discuss it in this thread, I suggest not participating.

No, it wasn't. As I've already shown, there were many profitable dealerships that were closed down.

The dealerships themselves may have been profitable, but they were bleeding money away from the companies. In some cases, viable dealerships were closed down by bureaucrats without due consideration, but those are the exception, not the rule, and I see no reason to suspect that it was motivated by democratic agenda. It appears that there was a greater motivation from bureaucratic process that is based nearly entirely on economic modeling instead of real world study.

There you go, both acknowledging and dismissing my point at the same time.

I never said you were completely wrong. I am just saying that I am not going to make the leap of faith here.

You still haven't read the link I provided, nor have you answered my question: What if 88% of the dealerships had contributed to Democrats - would GM have closed them down?

I have and I have. As I said, it does not appear that the closings were politically motivated or motivated by finance contributions.

They did close profitable dealerships. Thanks for admitting that. It only takes a high school level critical thinker or an intellectually honest person to connect the dots from here.

No, an intellectually honest person seeks facts and makes judgment based on fact, not fear or hysteria.

Profit is profit. You're using a red herring - population centers - where there is no evidence that this was a reason, and still DISMISSING the REALITY that many of the dealerships closed were PROFITABLE. Furthermore, you haven't read the TARP audit I linked, or you'd see that I've provided evidence that GM did everything wrong.

I've already addressed this. The local dealerships may have been profitable as entities, however when attached to GM or Chrysler, they bled money off. How much do you suppose GM spent on incentives to move cars off those lots? How much do you suppose they spent transporting those cars from those lots to different lots just to keep inventories fresh?

Clearly you are succeeding - why not TRY NOT to be dismissive and see how far you get.

Ok, in the future I won't say you are wrong and provide logical reasoning when you are so clearly wrong.

What is this, a court of law? Since when does circumstantial evidence not count for anything? That's preposterous. Circumstantial evidence is extremely reliable and very strong. In fact, it takes precedence over eyewitness evidence due to the unreliability of human error.

ahhhh. Do you understand even what circumstantial evidence is?

You're just choosing to interpret the evidence I've provided (and you haven't read) in favor of Obama. I'm curious - can he do anything wrong in your eyes?

There you go again calling me an Obama supporter. Can he do any right in your eyes? As I have said before, MANY times. I am all for blaming people for things they do. But it seems silly to form a lynch mob every time you see something that you can remotely link to him in some sketchy manner by making rash judgment that is only slightly based in fact and primarily based upon hate, hysteria, or whatever else causes you to come to the conclusions you do.

You are, of course, free to post all day long the wonderful things he is accomplishing in leading this country back to prosperity. The paucity of such posts actually undercuts your credibility in that you only show up to defend him, doggedly, and never tout his accomplishments.

huh? I don't post anything on here about the great things he is accomplishing. I think he is doing a half ass job, only slightly better than Bush. The only time I defend him is when you guys go into hysteria mode and start blaming him for everything from your neighbor farting in his driveway to the price of tea in china.

Then, in the process, you insult the person you're debating by implying he's a Nazi.

I didn't call you a Nazi. I said the articles you are posting are demonstrating more and more in common with the things published in Nazi propaganda newspapers prior to the rise to power by the Nazi party. In fact, much of what the Tea party is doing today has a lot of similarity to that stuff. I just had this discussion with someone the other day. I think we were also comparing Bush and the start of the recession to Hoover and the start of the Depression. Not to say that the recession was Bush's fault, settle down there trigger. Just saying, there are a lot of historical similarities.

There are reasons to believe this. You are just choosing to dismiss them out of hand with no alternative evidence of your own.

What reasons? A leap of faith? You want me to prove that this was not politically motivated or else it must be true? I thought we were over these Negative proof fallacies.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, I told you, I am not debating that with you unless you want to provide actual proof or facts.

If you had actually read my post you would know that I already have provided facts and cited empirical studies. But lying about me and distorting what I have to say is more convenient then approaching things honestly, apparently...

I don't care what essays you have written in class, nor do I care about some agenda driven propaganda.

In other words, no matter what I post, you will dismiss it. And people are supposed to actually take you seriously on this forum?

Also, I don't really care about the other thread, I am just addressing what Foss is talking about.

And that other thread informs this discussion. As I said, any discussion aimed at truth and understanding would read and consider that thread. However, if your aim is simply to engage in contentious posturing as a means of self-aggrandizement, that thread is nothing but an inconvenience and a distraction...

 

[FIND]

If you had actually read my post you would know that I already have provided facts and cited empirical studies. But lying about me and distorting what I have to say is more convenient then approaching things honestly, apparently...

Blah blah blah whine. You are still trying to deny that supply and demand drives prices.

In other words, no matter what I post, you will dismiss it. And people are supposed to actually take you seriously on this forum?

Sure why not. As long as you keep posting useless propaganda, I will just dismiss it.

And that other thread informs this discussion. As I said, any discussion aimed at truth and understanding would read and consider that thread. However, if your aim is simply to engage in contentious posturing as a means of self-aggrandizement, that thread is nothing but an inconvenience and a distraction...

Why should I read the other thread? I am already informed on the issues. If you want to bring up a point you made in the other thread, feel free to. If you feel that your "facts" cannot stand up to further discussion, then it sucks to be you. I am really getting tired of reading your posts that basically say nothing more than "we already discussed this and the conclusions we came to are the truth from here on out, you are not allowed to discuss this any further or present an opposing view point." Seriously shag, shut the hell up about it. If all you want to do is stop discussion, then why do you participate in discussion forums? The only time you are happy on here is when you repost some propaganda essay or article and someone comes on here to stroke your ego by agreeing with it. Why not try and find praise and validation in the real world, and devote your time on discussion forums to honest DISCUSSION, instead of just throwing out baseless insults at anyone who disagrees.

YouTube- ‪The Mad (Republican) Tea Party‬‎

 

[shagdrum]

You are still trying to deny that supply and demand drives prices.

My posts do no such thing and you know it. In fact, my argument hinges on the fact that supply and demand drive prices.

In regulating, land use, housing, construction, etc., the government is handicapping supply and insuring that it cannot keep up with rising demand.

I am pointing out how government actions distort that supply curve which results in changing the price equilibrium. But acknowledging that fact would take a degree of integrity that you have long since demonstrated you don't have in political discourse...

Sure why not. As long as you keep posting useless propaganda, I will just dismiss it.

And since you simply label anything and everything I post "useless propaganda" regardless of the facts and regardless of the truth, you have a convenient excuse to dismiss anything I say. Nice way to short circuit discourse in any thread.

Why should I read the other thread? I am already informed on the issues.

Your arguments clearly show that you are not informed on a lot of points that were raised in that thread. In claiming that you are "already informed" you are implying that any evidence and any argument counter to your claims is a priori illegitimate.

That attitude, which you have exhibited from day one on this forum, inhibits any discourse.

You have demonstrated that you are a troll and a fool who adds nothing to this forum.

 

[FIND]

Distorting the facts does not count as use of facts.

Your arguments clearly show that you are not informed on a lot of points that were raised in that thread. In claiming that you are "already informed" you are implying that any evidence and any argument counter to your claims is a priori illegitimate.

That attitude, which you have exhibited from day one on this forum, inhibits any discourse.

You have demonstrated that you are a troll and a fool who adds nothing to this forum.

just because I don't agree with the retarded drivel you have posted before does not mean I am not informed. If you wish to continue to insult someone feel free. Not like you are adding anything at this point. You are just trying to keep anyone from presenting an opposing view to your own distorted and woefully mistaken views. As I said before, if you have a point you wish to raise that has been previously discussed, feel free to do so. However you are just trying to block discussion by stating that you have previously completed discussion and the fact that I would present an opposing view somehow makes me a troll or intellectually dishonest.

Next time, try not to be so obvious.

 

[shagdrum]

Distorting the facts does not count as use of facts.

And yet you cannot show where I am "distorting" anything. The best you can offer is the implication that because my argument disagrees with yours it is self-evidently distortion.

That is highly presumptuous implication; it assumes you have a monopoly on knowledge, reason and truth. That assumption leaves absolutely no room for honest discourse (as was discussed in this thread, which you also dismissed out of hand, thus confirming what the initial article in that thread was saying).

In light of that implied assumption and your history on this forum of ignorant and presumptuous intellectual arrogance, there is no doubt that your purpose here is not to engage others in honest discourse. That leaves very few options as to why you are here, most of them pointing to trolling.

just because I don't agree with the retarded drivel you have posted before does not mean I am not informed.

Yet another cheap excuse to avoid honest discourse.

You are just trying to keep anyone from presenting an opposing view to your own distorted and woefully mistaken views.

Yet you cannot show how my views are "woefully mistaken" or "propaganda" or "distortion". Continued asserting of a lie doesn't make it any less a lie.

However you are just trying to block discussion...

Actually I am simply calling you out for blocking honest discussion. When you assume you have a monopoly on knowledge, reason and the truth, when you simply dismiss any opposing view as illegitimate and provide cheap excuses and lies to rationalize that dismissal, you inhibit and discourse.

 

[fossten]

just because I don't agree with the retarded drivel you have posted

Dude. That's just childish and whiny. Shag's posts are anything but retarded. At least if you're going to insult and mischaracterize him, make it believable. You didn't even make it to page 2 before losing your temper. You're not even trying to sound intelligent now.

I was going to respond to your last post toward me point by point, but now I see it's a total waste of time.

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You dismiss arguments out of hand and hurl epithets.

Unbelievable.

 

[Calabrio]

It would almost seem like there's an effort taking place to accelerate the depression in the red states.

 

[FIND]

And yet you cannot show where I am "distorting" anything. The best you can offer is the implication that because my argument disagrees with yours it is self-evidently distortion.

That is highly presumptuous implication; it assumes you have a monopoly on knowledge, reason and truth. That assumption leaves absolutely no room for honest discourse (as was discussed in this thread, which you also dismissed out of hand, thus confirming what the initial article in that thread was saying).

In light of that implied assumption and your history on this forum of ignorant and presumptuous intellectual arrogance, there is no doubt that your purpose here is not to engage others in honest discourse. That leaves very few options as to why you are here, most of them pointing to trolling.



Yet another cheap excuse to avoid honest discourse.



Yet you cannot show how my views are "woefully mistaken" or "propaganda" or "distortion". Continued asserting of a lie doesn't make it any less a lie.



Actually I am simply calling you out for blocking honest discussion. When you assume you have a monopoly on knowledge, reason and the truth, when you simply dismiss any opposing view as illegitimate and provide cheap excuses and lies to rationalize that dismissal, you inhibit and discourse.

Is it just me, or are 90% of your responses just posts about why you can't discuss something with someone. As I said, if you had a point you wanted to raise from the other thread, feel free to. However, you seem to be set on insisting that since you have already discussed it and I do not agree, that discussion can not continue.

I don't even see why you bother responding when all you can ever post is some insult or some long wordy explanation about why you cannot discuss something. Did you watch that video I posted? I'd say you fit that rather well.

 

[shagdrum]

Is it just me, or are 90% of your responses just posts about why you can't discuss something with someone.

So, you arrogantly assume that your point of view is self-evidently right, that you already know anything and everything relevant to the issue and that any opposing viewpoint is self evidently wrong. You willingly and habitually lie and distort to maintain your arrogant assumption of a monopoly on knowledge and the truth, yet I am at fault for finding it impossible to have any dialog with you due to those character flaws?

Looks like a cheap excuse aimed at spinning this as a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation...

 

[FIND]

So, you arrogantly assume that your point of view is self-evidently right, that you already know anything and everything relevant to the issue and that any opposing viewpoint is self evidently wrong. You willingly and habitually lie and distort to maintain your arrogant assumption of a monopoly on knowledge and the truth, yet I am at fault for finding it impossible to have any dialog with you due to those character flaws?

Looks like a cheap excuse aimed at spinning this as a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation...

And no matter how many times you respond, you always leave out the fact that I have invited you numerous times to bring up any relevant points you like from the other thread. I am not in any way saying that you can not respond, nor am I saying that your beliefs lack merit. You on the other hand, seem set on misrepresenting me and twisting everything. Then you come at me with statements like this? Grow the hell up.

Respond when you have the maturity and intelligence to talk like an adult, instead of just acting like a coward and spewing whatever libel and insults you can to try and discredit any opposing viewpoints. I have told you time and again, I am tired of your petty ad hominem arguments. If you aren't smart enough to discuss the topic, and can only throw out insults like a child, then don't respond.

Be honest with me, that video I posted is about you isn't it?

 

[fossten]

And no matter how many times you respond, you always leave out the fact that I have invited you numerous times to bring up any relevant points you like from the other thread. I am not in any way saying that you can not respond, nor am I saying that your beliefs lack merit. You on the other hand, seem set on misrepresenting me and twisting everything. Then you come at me with statements like this? Grow the hell up.

Respond when you have the maturity and intelligence to talk like an adult, instead of just acting like a coward and spewing whatever libel and insults you can to try and discredit any opposing viewpoints. I have told you time and again, I am tired of your petty ad hominem arguments. If you aren't smart enough to discuss the topic, and can only throw out insults like a child, then don't respond.

Be honest with me, that video I posted is about you isn't it?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Do you know what 'pot meet kettle' means?

 

[FIND]

Res ipsa loquitur.

Do you know what 'pot meet kettle' means?

turnabout is fair play.