Dedicated to right-wing racists
 

On 9/28/09 3:14 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49 pm, wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39 pm, wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.


what's funny is that the idiots blame the middle class for getting
ripped off by the rich and wanting to do something about it!! they
have their little myths that say the rich always do the right thing
and the middle class should just pay up and shut up.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to right-wing racists
 

On 9/28/09 3:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:08:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49 pm, wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39 pm, wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

I can understand using this type of argument if your position can't
stand on it's own merits.

But that begs the question: Why would you take a position that doesn't
stand on it's own merits? That's illogical.

Propaganda doesn't have to be logical. It just has to be effective.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:04:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

I am willing to live with an impediment to my liberty so the
government can provide for the national defense. But let's realize
that taking my money *is* an impediment to my liberty.
--

John H

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:04:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

I am willing to live with an impediment to my liberty so the
government can provide for the national defense. But let's realize
that taking my money *is* an impediment to my liberty.
--

John H

Hee hee! How selective & self serving you are.
Of course you'd be willing to pay taxes for self defence...that's your sugar
daddy.
Carried you all through your 'loafing years' and still carries you in your
retirement.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:57:35 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?


It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

Please try not to take my name in vain any more than necessary.
--

John H

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:59:47 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:57:35 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?


It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

Please try not to take my name in vain any more than necessary.

Oh! Uh...It's not like I was calling you a communist, John, or any
thing like that. (I shout to the rear as I artfully slip out the
back...)

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Don White wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--
Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.

Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not an
impediment to individual liberties.
That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

H the K wrote:
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:


"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their
liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is
not an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.



If you tell Donnie to not forget it he will probably write it down, but
shouldn't you present him with facts, rather than bull****, before you
make those demands on him?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Don White wrote:

You'd think he'd have the common sense to be grateful to the various levels
of government for his high-flying lifestyle, instead of bad mouthing them at
every opportunity.



You'd think? Try again, dummy.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 5:12*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:04:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. *But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. *You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.