Oh, that's obvious.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:02 pmNice strawman argument. What does taxing the super wealthy have to do with giving handouts to illegals?
Anyone who is against either of those is obviously a Nazi!
(Note: this is sarcasm.)
Moderator: Global Moderator
Oh, that's obvious.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:02 pmNice strawman argument. What does taxing the super wealthy have to do with giving handouts to illegals?
How is it a strawman? Do you even know what a straw man is? Did you learn logic from Prager U or something?
I still hadn't responded to your comment because it was a simple assertion you were making, not a question or a direct challenge to any assertion I made. It's ok to say you think something is someone's right, and I didn't find it particularly interesting or important to counter your point or ask for clarity. What was more interesting and important was to juxtapose your assertions against opinions we had just been discussing on taxes. Your seemingly driving principles of popularity vs economic freedom seemed to be fleeting depending on what the topic was. To me what principles people hold is far less interesting than when they are willing to drop them for a very different set of principles.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:35 pmhttps://thebestschools.org/magazine/15- ... cies-know/ (assuming you will accept my source )In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.
Perhaps it could be better called a red herring fallacy. No matter, you still haven't commented on the handouts to illegals, which was my argument.
Pretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:39 pmOh, that's obvious.
Anyone who is against either of those is obviously a Nazi!
(Note: this is sarcasm.)
Hey remember when you mentioned a "straw man?" See bolded above.MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 amI believe he is mocking the AOC left that considers anyone that doesn't believe in their full agenda a racist/nazi.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 pmPretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:39 pm
Oh, that's obvious.
Anyone who is against either of those is obviously a Nazi!
(Note: this is sarcasm.)
Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
The irony is that now the left is becoming increasingly anti-semitic. Look at what's been going on with the Women's March group.
Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:56 am I love tax policy when it goes religious. All kinds of tax policies work. All tax policies shape incentives. If a country’s citizens are cool with it, it funds whatever citizens want funded and doesn’t cause large elements of commerce to go black or grey market then the tax is “ok.”
One of my favorite quips on US politics: If you want free stuff vote Democrat. If you don’t want to pay for free stuff vote Republican.
I guess even LITERALLY marking something as SARCASM isn't good enough for some people.MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 amI believe he is mocking the AOC left that considers anyone that doesn't believe in their full agenda a racist/nazi.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 pmPretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:39 pm
Oh, that's obvious.
Anyone who is against either of those is obviously a Nazi!
(Note: this is sarcasm.)
Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
The irony is that now the left is becoming increasingly anti-semitic. Look at what's been going on with the Women's March group.
You didn't mark the accusation of proponents of high-tax rates as being communists as "sarcasm." From what I can tell, you should be ridiculing yourself.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:52 amI guess even LITERALLY marking something as SARCASM isn't good enough for some people.MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 amI believe he is mocking the AOC left that considers anyone that doesn't believe in their full agenda a racist/nazi.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 pm
Pretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."
Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
The irony is that now the left is becoming increasingly anti-semitic. Look at what's been going on with the Women's March group.
Thanks for the clarification.
It is pertinent, indeed. Given the rate of illegal immigration and their sheer numbers here, the burden they impose on the rest of us is substantial. If you take the Heritage Foundation's estimate of $7,000 per immigrant per year net cost (counting federal, state, local, and private direct costs, net of taxes paid by the illegal immigrants) and multiply that by the 22M estimated illegal immigrant population, you get an annual burden of $154 billion. Which btw doesn't count their children born on US soil who get to claim citizenship, or the relatives brought in as a result, due to the "chain migration" policy. These means that well over 10%, possibly 20% of the current resident US population is either here illegally, or as a result of illegal immigration. It sounds shocking but it's entirely consistent with what I see every day.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:47 pm My comment was a red herring to the argument about welfare rights of immigrants. However it was very pertinent to the tax discussion, which was where we started this discussion in the first place. I made that clear. Or at least I thought I did.
As to whether illegal immigrants have rights to "ask for" handouts. Well of course they do. But I think you meant "receive handouts from government." I'd say it's a stretch for them to have a "right" to government handouts, if you mean rights in a natural/moral (rather than legal) sense. But in a natural/moral sense I question whether anyone has a "right" to government handouts. And someone's willingness to accept government handouts probably doesn't give me the "right" to restrict their travel.
I do lock my front door. Mostly for the personal financial & personal safety risk benefit, as anyone breaking into an apartment doesn't have the best intentions. I don't think that same logic applies to the hundreds of millions of acres of the southwest United States as a whole. Maybe individual apartments, plots of land, etc. But not the whole damn thing.WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:37 amIt is pertinent, indeed. Given the rate of illegal immigration and their sheer numbers here, the burden they impose on the rest of us is substantial. If you take the Heritage Foundation's estimate of $7,000 per immigrant per year net cost (counting federal, state, local, and private direct costs, net of taxes paid by the illegal immigrants) and multiply that by the 22M estimated illegal immigrant population, you get an annual burden of $154 billion. Which btw doesn't count their children born on US soil who get to claim citizenship, or the relatives brought in as a result, due to the "chain migration" policy. These means that well over 10%, possibly 20% of the current resident US population is either here illegally, or as a result of illegal immigration. It sounds shocking but it's entirely consistent with what I see every day.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:47 pm My comment was a red herring to the argument about welfare rights of immigrants. However it was very pertinent to the tax discussion, which was where we started this discussion in the first place. I made that clear. Or at least I thought I did.
As to whether illegal immigrants have rights to "ask for" handouts. Well of course they do. But I think you meant "receive handouts from government." I'd say it's a stretch for them to have a "right" to government handouts, if you mean rights in a natural/moral (rather than legal) sense. But in a natural/moral sense I question whether anyone has a "right" to government handouts. And someone's willingness to accept government handouts probably doesn't give me the "right" to restrict their travel.
The arguments about these immigrants having a natural "right to travel" are an example of a theoretical belief taken to ridiculous extremes. Moda, do you lock your front door? If so, you do realize that you're restricting others' "right to travel" into your house. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument could be used to support a ban on all locks that restrict people from entering any area, whether public or private. So what if people then start robbing you blind? They're doing that anyway, and you & half the country don't seem to mind.