Shad
Veteran Member
That is because I am blunt. Attacking an argument results in people thinking I support the opposite in their minds.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Say Something Conciliatory to the “Other Side”
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
That is because I am blunt. Attacking an argument results in people thinking I support the opposite in their minds.
Hmmm.....just in case, you're far from the Canuckistanian I had in mind.
You're reasonable.
Shad
Veteran Member
Well that is surprising. I thought you were talking about me as I often go low when I see something I consider stupid.
I didn't even know you're from Canuckistan until
I checked your profile after reading your post.
Shad
Veteran Member
I need to use "eh" more often.
If you are wondering why a Canadian talks a lot about US politics it is due the close relationship between the two nations at this time. Canada relies upon America to the point that Canada is more or less an unofficial extension of America beyond that of say Puerto Rica. American politics and social issue bleeds into the same systems in Canada view general media.
I don't wonder about Canucks being interested in US politics.
After all, it's the 51st state. Wireyiana is the 52nd.
Nah.
Israel is the 51st state. Israel gets more federal taxpayer support than California.
Tom
Wrong!
Israel is part of Washington DC.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
Nah....you're too reasonable.*gasp!*
Is it me?! Is it me?!
My dad's family came from Canuckistan. I didn't even realize there was a name for poutine until you pointed it out. Poutine was a treat lunch from my grandmother.
Am I a Canuckistan, to you?
Tom
"Canuckistan" is the country.
You'd be "Canuckistanian" if you're from there.
But you're just an Ameristanian.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
But that’s not really what Bloomberg is saying here regarding tax increases. He’s saying taxes should only be raised when necessary to balance the budget. Lots of things could create budget imbalance (like the economic cycle or a disaster), not just campaign promises. And he’s not saying there aren’t other ways to balance the budget - he specifically mentioned doing more with less and ensuring aid only goes to those who need it. So to equate what he said to raising taxes to pay for campaign promises is kind of distorting what he said.
He also said taxes should be raised only when necessary and “only in combination with spending cuts”.
But maybe you were making a general comment and not addressing what Bloomberg said, specifically?
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think you’re blunt, but with a bias towards defending Trump, for reasons I don’t yet understand. For example, when admitting some flaw or absurdity regarding Trump, I do not recall you being very blunt - you are a lot kinder and more nuanced. But when attacking arguments against Trump that you perceive to be flawed, you are quite blunt. Ironically, the criticism of Trump that you oppose, is usually itself very blunt - and for that, it invites your counter-criticism for not being more nuanced and accurate.
I do not mean to be personal but wanted to provide that feedback on how what you perceive to be bluntness - which I admire by the way - looks like “selective” bluntness, from a different perspective.
Shad
Veteran Member
So? He is leaving out a whole issue with politics which is policy. Ergo ignoring fiscal conservationism at the policy level before anything becomes a real budget concern.
Sure. See the above.
Need is an opinion at this point.
I didn't equate. I pointed out how blind his idea of fiscal conservatism is as he ignores the policy level application.
He also said taxes should be raised only when necessary and “only in combination with spending cuts”.
No I am point out a level of use he omits completely.
Shad
Veteran Member
No I have a bias against bad faith arguments. I ripped Romney and McCain for the same reasons.
Hardly. I call him a liar often enough. I just happen to think other politicians lie as well as it is the pot calling the kettle black especially in 2016's choices.
I do not tap dance around issues. Accuracy means nothing without specific examples.
Hardly. I am just not driven by a hatred of the man like so many on the American left are.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
1.Wealth is the most important part of living a successful life.
2. Wealth and power are the best achievements Americans should strive for.
3. Those who don't achieve success in these areas are not trying hard enough and need to try harder.
4. People who live in poverty do so because they have not taken advantage of the opportunity afforded to every single American.
5. Ill, or poor people are lazy and useless in contributing to the American economy.
6. Poor, old people should have planned better for their golden years and increasing property values and taxes.
7. People who cannot afford health insurance have no business having it.
8. The more you make on the stock market, the more American you really are.
9. If you do try to improve your life by following the rules your student loan debts will keep you from moving towards a comfortable and secure lifestyle. If you happen to choose the wrong education you are sol. Or if you choose the correct education you may still be sol if the positions are not available.
10. If you care one iota about the health of the planet, ecosystems and other animals including humans on the same planet, you are no red blooded American.
Sorry, I don't find an agreement in there. There are other differences. Please let me understand why I am wrong and what I am missing concerning the best way for us to continue as Americans and decent human beings.
Instead of looking for areas of agreement,
you've sought out disagreement. I'll wager
that if you set your mind to it, you could
find something in common.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
I bet you're right. Let's see:
A real good pepperoni pizza is delightful
A nice car is a pleasure to drive
A warm house is cozy
Traveling can be fun
Bad teachers should not be allowed to stay because of tenor or contract
Too much regulation is a hinder to good regulations
Bad cops should be removed nor hired to begin with
Religious people should be ableto practice their religion as long as it doesn't intrude on others
Well, that is a start. But none of those effect the majority of Americans every day.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Democrats have traditionally been the ones looking for areas of agreement, seeking bipartisan support for their bills, going in with rational propositions and even then compromising. The republicans have traditionally seen that as weak and took advantage of it. The US Overton window is so skewed that, from a European perspective, the most radical leftist would be dead center here.
Democracy should be a game where you can have opposing positions on almost everything as long as you agree on the rules of the game. But even that is highly questionable after the acquittal of Trump. Are the republicans still into democracy? Is there even a basis for finding agreement?
As I see it, the democrats have to earn the respect of the republicans by beating them up, enforcing their policies without caring about compromises. Republicans are usually authoritarian, they like to be treated that way. Sometimes you have to first earn respect before you can discuss eye to eye. The US left doesn't have the respect of the right and many don't even have self respect.