Oh please. When i insult the idea of taking issue with Obama's birth certificate, i do so with the full realization that i'm insulting anyone and everyone who takes issue with Obama's birth certificate...
Originally Posted by Doove
Let's be clear here.
The first interaction I had with you (in the D&T forum) took place in a thread where a couple of people, including me, were expressing opposition to some of Obama's economic policy proposals. You reacted childishly and petulantly by likening anyone, including me, who opposed any of Obama's
economic policies to those idiotic "birthers." That was obnoxious and disingenuous. When I suggested that you knock it off, since I made no mention of that issue, you kept hammering away at that same stupid theme. If you pull crap like that, you ought not to be surprised that someone responds to your posts in such a manner that you feel like you're being treated with derision or contempt. You
earned it!
...the only arguments that qualify as "cogent and well-reasoned" in your world are arguments that agree with your theory of everything.
Originally Posted by Doove
When I said that someone seemed incapable of making a "cogent and well-reasoned" argument, I was particularly referring to posts where he made no argument at all. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Accompanying a statement that somebody is wrong with a link to something, especially if it was written by a very biased economist who's well out of the mainstream, is not "making a cogent and well-reasoned argument", since it's really not making an argument at all.
Then why even bother coming here? Unless, of course, your smart liberal friends knock you around so much that you need to come here to get a few wins under your belt.
Originally Posted by Doove
Why do I come here? Oh, I don't know. I've enjoyed the escort boards for years, although I play pretty much exclusively in the "sugar daddy" and UTR worlds. I suppose that in some way I just consider all of us sort of like kindred spirits!
And regarding getting a few "wins", that's not what it's all about. It's not really as though I've carried on many debates in other forums, but occasionally policy is discussed, especially regarding how it may impact markets. It's also fair to say that many of those in the investment world with whom I've corresponded aren't really "liberals"; at least they might not be all that liberal in your book. Perhaps a better classification would be "center-left."
And on the occasions where we disagreed, we did so in a reasonably friendly way.
Let me give an example:
A couple of years, ago during a discussion on anticipated tax policy proposals and their potential impact on markets and the economy, someone said that Reagan's tax cuts of the 1980s greatly increased income and wealth inequality by shifting the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the backs of the middle class and the poor. But that's simply not true.
One guy said that I had to be getting something confused; did I really mean Reagan?
I said, yes, I know that's not what everyone thinks. But Reagan actually
cut taxes for almost all households, while the tax reform act of 1986 actually
raised taxes on wealthy investors, even though the top bracket rate came down. (This was primarily due to the phasing out of the liberal use of accelerated depreciation, which previously allowed investors to wipe out much of their tax liability, even if the income came from sources unrelated to the depreciated asset.)
So while Reagan can obviously be criticized for myriad things, redistributing wealth upward by means of the tax code is not one of them.
The guy then said, "Huh?!? Care to try to back that up?"
After I did, he simply said, "Damn! I had no idea!"
Now here's a good example of how not to disagree in a civil manner:
When that topic was being discussed in the D&T forum, TTH posted a link to an article by some professor who stated that Reagan's tax policies were a primary factor in widening income disparity. When I pointed out that it simply wasn't true, and that the good professor should perhaps have acquainted himself with the facts before writing that, TTH said that I was "mired in ignorance."
(If you're going to claim that someone's post indicates that he is "mired in ignorance", it's always a good idea to be sure you have some knowledge of the subject under discussion!)
By the way, for anyone who doesn't believe my above statement, here's a link so you can check for yourself:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
If you file a simple return with salary or fee income only, you can see what your tax bill would have been at any time in history. (Be sure to adjust all numbers for inflation.)
So if anyone thinks I've taken up something of a strident tone when replying to Doove and TexTushHog, that's why.
Believe it or not, I am actually a pretty friendly guy. I enjoy a little disagreement; I just get a little pissed off when someone starts attacking me with cheap insults.
