d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Epic Media Fail Thread
Prev1353637383949Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 6410Replies: 483Track Topic
Member
Posts: 28,884
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
#361
Apr 28 2021 08:20pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 10:02pm)
I think you should open your eyes and read what's being typed, because you didn't respond to what IceMage wrote, and proceeded to straw man the hell out of him on basically every level.


Framing necessary things like a basic infrastructure package or funding necessary as 'raising spending' is dumb. Certain things need to get done regardless of deficits.

Republicans want to fix bridges and highways just like democrats. Democrats just want to throw another 1.3 trillion in pork.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
#362
Apr 28 2021 08:33pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 10:20pm)
Framing necessary things like a basic infrastructure package or funding necessary as 'raising spending' is dumb. Certain things need to get done regardless of deficits.

Republicans want to fix bridges and highways just like democrats. Democrats just want to throw another 1.3 trillion in pork.


Tax breaks and free money for for Democratic states jammed into an "infrastructure bill" :rofl:
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#363
Apr 28 2021 09:37pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 09:20pm)
Framing necessary things like a basic infrastructure package or funding necessary as 'raising spending' is dumb. Certain things need to get done regardless of deficits.

Republicans want to fix bridges and highways just like democrats. Democrats just want to throw another 1.3 trillion in pork.


So they want to spend and lower taxes.

Doesnt seem fiscally conservative.

Also, lol @ the idea that Republicans want to fix bridges and highways. Infrastructure has been brought up for damn near a decade, with even Trump being pressured to work out a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and there was never even a proposal until Biden made it an actual goal. The only reason Republicans are making an infrastructure bill is because Democrats are, and they want to look like they're negotiating even though they aren't going to be approaching the table in good faith. Democrats infrastructure bill isn't enough to get us half way to where we need to be, so Republicans giving a fraction of that is ridiculous. The thing is, Democrats build their initial proposals with compromise baked in. Then Republicans lower it even further. If they had balls they'd propose 8 trillion, and let Republicans counter and then do 2 trillion. Instead they're pansies who value bipartisanship even at the cost of getting done what needs to be done.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 28 2021 09:47pm
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
#364
Apr 29 2021 06:12am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 10:02pm)
I think you should open your eyes and read what's being typed, because you didn't respond to what IceMage wrote, and proceeded to straw man the hell out of him on basically every level.


Basically.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#365
Apr 29 2021 06:31am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 08:49pm)
So obtuse. Fiscal conservatism doesn't mean that spending is zero. This may be news to you but republican legislators were funding social services, having parks built, building roads through debt. The 600b package would be funded by whatever is collected in taxes and then the rest would be debt but the standard for fiscal conservatism is not 0 deficit, that's just your idiotic imposition that isn't based on anything empirical.

I've explained the nuance to you about half a dozen times now. The way to get to balance budgets or fiscal responsibility or whatever is to lower both of the levels of spending and taxation according to fiscal conservatism. These are fundamental principles that have been part of the republican party for decades and what makes up the backbone of fiscal conservatism. Evident in dozens of spending packages we can go through one by one.

Imagine being so dense to believe that higher taxes could be a tenant of what makes up fiscal conservatism if we play with some what-if. It's like we live in the upside down.

Like open your eyes and do some basic research go read through some of the past budgets. Go read what each party proposed.


just embarrassing, not even reading anymore.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 09:02pm)
I think you should open your eyes and read what's being typed, because you didn't respond to what IceMage wrote, and proceeded to straw man the hell out of him on basically every level.


Quote (IceMage @ Apr 29 2021 07:12am)
Basically.


hes living in a 2d world. tower of strawmans.
Member
Posts: 28,884
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
#366
Apr 29 2021 08:20am
Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 29 2021 08:31am)
just embarrassing, not even reading anymore.





hes living in a 2d world. tower of strawmans.


I mean conversation has run it's course.

You and others made it clear you don't care about the numbers. You don't care about definitions, you don't care about established spending norms or history. It's been a huge exercise of continuously expanding the goalposts and treating fiscal conservatism as an absolutist perspective all or nothing.

Icemage points to republicans not reducing spending-- as if they didn't try, as if they had the political votes as if there aren't other factors like Trump wanting to win an election so obviously he would want to give freebies to the electorate and go against McConnell.

Your guys responses was a continuous 'yeah but'

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 29 2021 08:21am
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#367
Apr 29 2021 08:32am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 29 2021 09:20am)
I mean conversation has run it's course.

You and others made it clear you don't care about the numbers. You don't care about definitions, you don't care about established spending norms or history. It's been a huge exercise of continuously expanding the goalposts and treating fiscal conservatism as an absolutist perspective all or nothing.

Icemage points to republicans not reducing spending-- as if they didn't try, as if they had the political votes as if there aren't other factors like Trump wanting to win an election so obviously he would want to give freebies to the electorate and go against McConnell.

Your guys responses was a continuous 'yeah but'


we care about all of the numbers, u care about 2 of them.

you brought Websters into the chat, not us.

stop being a pathetic child.

pages later you're distorting reality to fit your silly bias.
Member
Posts: 28,884
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
#368
Apr 29 2021 08:42am
Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 29 2021 10:32am)
we care about all of the numbers, u care about 2 of them.

you brought Websters into the chat, not us.

stop being a pathetic child.

pages later you're distorting reality to fit your silly bias.


lol bias

my points are based on reality and history while your perspective leads to retarded conclusions such as higher taxes could be fiscally conservative :rofl:

Next up your going to tell me how socialist countries that collect 80% in taxes and have a matched budget are fiscally conservative. Like lol, when you don't know what words and concepts mean you end up with ideas like fiscal conservatism meaning the same thing as socialism.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#369
Apr 29 2021 08:46am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 29 2021 09:42am)
lol bias

my points are based on reality and history while your perspective leads to retarded conclusions such as higher taxes could be fiscally conservative :rofl:

Next up your going to tell me how socialist countries that collect 80% in taxes and have a matched budget are fiscally conservative. Like lol, when you don't know what words and concepts mean you end up with ideas like fiscal conservatism meaning the same thing as socialism.


your points are based on a sliver of reality, that's bias defined.

and as you've been told several times no one at all is saying a balanced budget = fiscally conservative, just as you're not saying lowered taxed alone makes someone fiscally conservative. we're simply using X+Y+Z and you're only using X+Y

i dont know why im explaining the same simple concept to you for the fifth time tho, you're just proving your lack of intelligence in failing to grasp it even tho its coming from all angles.

maybe you're "trolling", that's seeming more and more likely the more strawmans you toss out. surely you cant think you're actually making logical posts when you continue to make the same mistake a dozen times while being corrected a dozen times. would take a seriously stupid person to maintain confidence throughout that.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
#370
Apr 29 2021 08:49am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 29 2021 10:42am)
lol bias

my points are based on reality and history while your perspective leads to retarded conclusions such as higher taxes could be fiscally conservative :rofl:

Next up your going to tell me how socialist countries that collect 80% in taxes and have a matched budget are fiscally conservative. Like lol, when you don't know what words and concepts mean you end up with ideas like fiscal conservatism meaning the same thing as socialism.


He believes in UBI because his company would benefit from it.

He's just a slave to his masters at this point.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1353637383949Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact