Republicans set to just say no to jobs bill

[Modbert]

That's an awfully weak field of "competitors".

Of course, it rings pretty hollow to have someone preach to us about the military-industrial complex, from a guy who just spent eight years enabling it.

Can't blame him for the lack of great Presidents in the Post-WWII Era. I assume you have someone else in mind for that "title."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Encore, tu quoque. LMAO!

This is just too easy.

Perhaps you don't understand what tu quoque means.

Translated, it means "You, too". Otherwise known as the "But mom! He did it first" argument. It's a logical fallacy meant to discredit a statement by excusing it by comparison - your side did it first.

Whereas my statement made NO comment on your thesis - I do not attempt to contradict you, I agree with your statement. "Newspeak" is used by liberals. My post was aimed at you being disingenuous by implying that only the "left" do it.

Tu quoque is your reply to my comment.

Idiot.

And, I implied nothing. You inferred. Incorrectly. But, if you wish to invoke a tu quoque 'point' on the Newspeak front, I'll thank you for amusing me again.

I'm not going to argue logic with someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

Big words don't make you seem smart if you don't know what they mean.

And if you were "implying nothing", you would have just left the "from the left" out of your post.

 

[Si modo]

Then what are you doing in your responses to me, huh?

Trying to get you to understand that what your points are is different than the points I'm debating made by someone else.

Your comment:

....But trying to stop waste by cutting spending is like burning down your neighborhood to warm your house.

My counterpoints ensued.

Now you agree with me.

That's a good boy.

 

[Oddball]

That's an awfully weak field of "competitors".

Of course, it rings pretty hollow to have someone preach to us about the military-industrial complex, from a guy who just spent eight years enabling it.

Can't blame him for the lack of great Presidents in the Post-WWII Era. I assume you have someone else in mind for that "title."

No...But I don't consider any of them anywhere above mediocre to start with.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

@ bold: That's where you exercise your right to vote.

Do you realize that drastically cutting back the defense budget right now would turn this recession into a second Great Depression? The military-industrial complex is too large a part of our economy now. Peace = lost jobs.

You should read all posts.

Edit. I already explained how to cover defense cuts in war time.

We're going be in war time for the foreseeable future. Perhaps for the rest of our time as a society. We have to be - otherwise our economy collapses.

 

[Modbert]

My counterpoints ensued.

Now you agree with me.

That's a good boy.

You seemed to miss out on how I followed that up with clarifying across the board 20% cuts. That's what I was arguing against. Not just cutting spending in general.

 

[Si modo]

Perhaps you don't understand what tu quoque means.

Translated, it means "You, too". Otherwise known as the "But mom! He did it first" argument. It's a logical fallacy meant to discredit a statement by excusing it by comparison - your side did it first.

Whereas my statement made NO comment on your thesis - I do not attempt to contradict you, I agree with your statement. "Newspeak" is used by liberals. My post was aimed at you being disingenuous by implying that only the "left" do it.

Tu quoque is your reply to my comment.

Idiot.

And, I implied nothing. You inferred. Incorrectly. But, if you wish to invoke a tu quoque 'point' on the Newspeak front, I'll thank you for amusing me again.

I'm not going to argue logic with someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

Big words don't make you seem smart if you don't know what they mean.

And if you were "implying nothing", you would have just left the "from the left" out of your post.

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

 

[Si modo]

My counterpoints ensued.

Now you agree with me.

That's a good boy.

You seemed to miss out on how I followed that up with clarifying across the board 20% cuts. That's what I was arguing against. Not just cutting spending in general.

No, Fragileegobert, I didn't miss a thing.

Re-read my posts where I discuss waste and cutting in ALL agencies (I even capitalized it originally...guess it didn't help your observation skills).

So, you really ARE arguing against my comments.

But, to reiterate - cut 20% (for starters) of ALL agencies' budgets. They will cut waste and maybe even cut some programs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Tu quoque is your reply to my comment.

Idiot.

And, I implied nothing. You inferred. Incorrectly. But, if you wish to invoke a tu quoque 'point' on the Newspeak front, I'll thank you for amusing me again.

I'm not going to argue logic with someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

Big words don't make you seem smart if you don't know what they mean.

And if you were "implying nothing", you would have just left the "from the left" out of your post.

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

Certainly, your post is accurate. I never claimed it wasn't - in fact, I stated that your post was accurate in a post of mine. But being "accurate" does not rule out being "partisan".

But my response was just as accurate.

I think you're really not understanding my point. And I don't have the patience to explain it again. Believe what you wish - if it makes you feel better, you can say that you "won".

 

[Si modo]

I'm not going to argue logic with someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

Big words don't make you seem smart if you don't know what they mean.

And if you were "implying nothing", you would have just left the "from the left" out of your post.

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

Certainly, your post is accurate. I never claimed it wasn't - in fact, I stated that your post was accurate in a post of mine. But being "accurate" does not rule out being "partisan".

But my response was just as accurate.

I think you're really not understanding my point. And I don't have the patience to explain it again. Believe what you wish - if it makes you feel better, you can say that you "won".

My original post here was making fun of what the left calls nothing but wasteful spending.

Your 'point' is that the last administration did the same.

And my response to such a fallacy is, 'so what'? Re-read my posts in response to you. I do not deny anything you say, I simply say, in essence, 'so what?' Your points are nothing, as tu quoque is known to be. Not only does that 'point' do nothing, it only strengthens my original point.

So, I chuckle.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

Certainly, your post is accurate. I never claimed it wasn't - in fact, I stated that your post was accurate in a post of mine. But being "accurate" does not rule out being "partisan".

But my response was just as accurate.

I think you're really not understanding my point. And I don't have the patience to explain it again. Believe what you wish - if it makes you feel better, you can say that you "won".

My original post here was making fun of what the left calls nothing but wasteful spending.

Your 'point' is that the last administration did the same.

And my response to such a fallacy is, 'so what'? Re-read my posts in response to you. I do not deny anything you say, I simply say, in essence, 'so what?' Your points are nothing, as tu quoque is known to be. Not only does that 'point' do nothing, it only strengthens my original point.

So, I chuckle.

Once again, you've missed the point.

What you're missing is that my post refers only to your partisanship - not the point of your post.

 

[Si modo]

Certainly, your post is accurate. I never claimed it wasn't - in fact, I stated that your post was accurate in a post of mine. But being "accurate" does not rule out being "partisan".

But my response was just as accurate.

I think you're really not understanding my point. And I don't have the patience to explain it again. Believe what you wish - if it makes you feel better, you can say that you "won".

My original post here was making fun of what the left calls nothing but wasteful spending.

Your 'point' is that the last administration did the same.

And my response to such a fallacy is, 'so what'? Re-read my posts in response to you. I do not deny anything you say, I simply say, in essence, 'so what?' Your points are nothing, as tu quoque is known to be. Not only does that 'point' do nothing, it only strengthens my original point.

So, I chuckle.

Once again, you've missed the point.

What you're missing is that my post refers only to your partisanship - not the point of your post.

Being accurate is equivalent to being partisan now.

Gotta love that left Newspeak.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My original post here was making fun of what the left calls nothing but wasteful spending.

Your 'point' is that the last administration did the same.

And my response to such a fallacy is, 'so what'? Re-read my posts in response to you. I do not deny anything you say, I simply say, in essence, 'so what?' Your points are nothing, as tu quoque is known to be. Not only does that 'point' do nothing, it only strengthens my original point.

So, I chuckle.

Once again, you've missed the point.

What you're missing is that my post refers only to your partisanship - not the point of your post.

Being accurate is equivalent to being partisan now.

Gotta love that left Newspeak.

Now you're just being obtuse.

Not to mention disingenuous. What exactly are you talking about? When did I say anything about accuracy being equivalent to partisanship?

 

[Si modo]

Once again, you've missed the point.

What you're missing is that my post refers only to your partisanship - not the point of your post.

Being accurate is equivalent to being partisan now.

Gotta love that left Newspeak.

Now you're just being obtuse.

Not to mention disingenuous. What exactly are you talking about? When did I say anything about accuracy being equivalent to partisanship?

Let's see if I use a diffferent approach...an outline, perhaps?

We'll give it a try.

I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. Some posters try to make a point that the last administration did the same.
B. Si modo laughs at the fallacy of such 'points'.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

Thus, I have to laugh at the left's (you ARE on the left, no?) additional Newspeak: accuracy in posting = partisan.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Being accurate is equivalent to being partisan now.

Gotta love that left Newspeak.

Now you're just being obtuse.

Not to mention disingenuous. What exactly are you talking about? When did I say anything about accuracy being equivalent to partisanship?

Let's see if I use a diffferent approach...an outline, perhaps?

We'll give it a try.

I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. Some posters try to make a point that the last administration did the same.
B. Si modo laughs at the fallacy of such 'points'.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

Thus, I have to laugh at the left's (you ARE on the left, no?) additional Newspeak: accuracy in posting = partisan.

First of all, no - I don't consider myself on the left. I may lean more left than right, but I'm way too much an anarchist to be "left". I just don't like people being disingenuously partisan.

And I'll address the rest of your post by editing it.



I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. A poster calls you out on your partisanship in blaming "Newspeak" on "the left".
B. Si modo misses the point, and claims that the post is employing a logical fallacy.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point, once again missing the point, since the poster is not disagreeing with her post, rather calling her out for partisanship.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

I think what you're missing is that even though "partisanship" and "accuracy" are not equal, they are not mutually exclusive either. Your OP was both partisan and accurate. Just like my equivalent post was both partisan and accurate, to prove the same point.

 

[Yurt]

the irony is that thedoctorspin doesn't call out those on the left of partisanship....

yawn

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans need to vote YES on this one

They have already lost any chance to block through fillibuster. By voting YES they get to give the impression that they are no longer the Party of No and are willing to reach across the aisle.

However, as usual, Republicans can't help being Republicans so they will, as usual say NO to more jobs

You don't understand.

We WANT them to be the party of NO new taxes
NO unnecessary higher deficits
NO more huge increases to the national debt and less opportunity for our kids/grandkids.
NO more payola or 'feel good' spending that doesn't accomplish what is advertised
NO more threatening the American people with untenable and unsustainable socialist programs like healthcare that nobody believes will accomplish a thing
NO more attempts to force Americans into an energy policy that takes away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities.

God help them all if they cave in and stop being the party of NO to these destructive ideas.

No problem with me...

I would just as soon have them keep their Party of No record intact

Unlike football, elections aren't won by only playing defense. They need to offer something, too.

 

[MaggieMae]

why was another bill necessary? there are hundreds of billions of dollars in the original stimulus that could be used for this same thing, this bill is a political stunt, nothing more

Why was a tax break for small business necessary? Is that your question? Why don't you ask all the Republicans who have been clamoring for just that sort of thing.

Including the shit dicks who voted against this bill.

no........why not use the original stimulus....

can't asnwer that huh

It's already been answered elsewhere right in this thread. LQQK!!!

 

[Si modo]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Not to mention disingenuous. What exactly are you talking about? When did I say anything about accuracy being equivalent to partisanship?

Let's see if I use a diffferent approach...an outline, perhaps?

We'll give it a try.

I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. Some posters try to make a point that the last administration did the same.
B. Si modo laughs at the fallacy of such 'points'.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

Thus, I have to laugh at the left's (you ARE on the left, no?) additional Newspeak: accuracy in posting = partisan.

First of all, no - I don't consider myself on the left. I may lean more left than right, but I'm way too much an anarchist to be "left". I just don't like people being disingenuously partisan.

And I'll address the rest of your post by editing it.



I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. A poster calls you out on your partisanship in blaming "Newspeak" on "the left".
B. Si modo misses the point, and claims that the post is employing a logical fallacy.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point, once again missing the point, since the poster is not disagreeing with her post, rather calling her out for partisanship.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

I think what you're missing is that even though "partisanship" and "accuracy" are not equal, they are not mutually exclusive either. Your OP was both partisan and accurate. Just like my equivalent post was both partisan and accurate, to prove the same point.

You are a joke.

You used a tu quoque fallacy, got called out for it, then claim that my accuracy is equivalent to partisanship.

Your Newspeak is showing like a cheap slip.

Idiot.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the solution to our problems is a jobs bill, why wait over a year and until your supermajority is gone to pass it?

I think you're confusing the jobs bill with the health bill.