Another day, another scandal. Criminy.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not a fucking strawman, dickface. It's my ASSERTION. I'm not characterizing YOUR argument at all, so it can't be a strawman

Again -- tell me who you do rely on, and I'll be glad to be proven wrong when I verify that he or she does, in fact, advocate reduced government spending.

Is that so hard?

[Coito ergo sum]

A strawman is a fallacy where person A misstates person B's argument and then purports to defeat person B's argument by knocking down the mischaracterized argument. I did not do that; therefore, I did not strawman you. Before you invoke these logical fallacies, you may want to get a fair understanding of what they are.

[pErvinalia]

FFS, look up what a "strawman" argument is. I never mentioned "Krugman" and I never mentioned anything about "guys who never advocate smaller spending". All of that shit is made up by you. Please get a fucking clue.

[camoguard]

I think the OP scandal is a serious problem. It sounds like one of those typical military level scandals though. I think sexually exploiting people is crap. Don't get me wrong. But that's the kind of thing that doesn't require me to think any level of the cabinet or Obama did anything wrong.

Running the government into the ground is annoying. Exploiting people sexually is seriously heinous.

[Cormac]

Benghazi?!? Have you been watching Fox News?
The IRS....that 'scandal' is proving not to be one....
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/ ... olved?lite

No -- the IRS has been proving to be one. Stop listening to MSNBC. The IRS admitted they were wrong. They merely danced on the head of a pin as to what they did wrong and whether there was any intent to go after conservative political groups. The IRS has been hiding the ball -- they refuse to obey subpoenas and they have not disclosed the answers to simple questions, like: who authorized the criteria used, and whatnot.

This is bad stuff going on. Bad stuff. I have not read more chilling material about any President since before Ford was President. Seriously. And, no it is not because I'm a fox news devotee -- which I never watch. It's because I'm NOT an MSNBC devotee, and I don't let apologists tell me what to think about these issues. Maddowblog? Are you serious, Kristie? You excoriate me for supposedly watching Fox News and you cite "Maddowblog?"

How can the IRS ignore a subpoena?

I've seen a district court judge haul our Director of Public Prosecutions down to court at a moment's notice. (The DPP is the head of our state prosecution service - a big cheese). If the IRS ignites subpoenas, then not only is it in contempt of court, but also it is breaching separation of powers. Jail sentences should follow.

Should, yes. But, we're talking politics, and the IRS has political balls.

When political machinations of state bodies usurps judicial authority, that is the very definition of breach of separation of powers. Anytime ANY state body acts in this way, its leadership should be jailed until it purges its contempt of court. There is a good argument for bringing charges of treason against any member who authorised defiance of the courts.

[Warren Dew]

Hey, the country needed a bailout after the Bush mess. Cutting spending would have put us in depression. Smaller Gubment for sure. Nothing left to tax.

Smaller spending nipped the depression of 1920 in the bud. It would have done so here as well, had it been used.

Rubbish. Fuck I have to laugh at the way historical data can be interpreted one way over the other. Didn't 914 and I put all this nonsense to bed on RDF and the early days at Ratskep? I can't believe people still seriously argue this line.

Although I don't remember his ever addressing Harding's handling of the depression of 1920, 914 posted a lot of cherry picked distortions, and little else. I hadn't realized you had been so taken in.

Lol, says the guy who quoted the "Austrian economists" as an authoritative source.

You seem to have failed to read accurately.

[pErvinalia]

So you didn't mention Austrian economists?

edit: Hmm, seems you didn't. Maybe I am getting confused with something I read from you at ratskep. Or another thread here that I can't find. Either way, someone once said something about the Austrians sometime.

edit2: No, here it is - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... &p=1447511

[Coito ergo sum]

FFS, look up what a "strawman" argument is. I never mentioned "Krugman" and I never mentioned anything about "guys who never advocate smaller spending". All of that shit is made up by you. Please get a fucking clue.

Look -- what the fuck is your basis basis for saying that the economics question here has been "put to bed?" Who are you relying on? Yourself? If so, then you can hardly claim it was "put to bed" because you haven't done any studies or papers on economic theory proving your case. If you are relying on someone else's work, whose fucking work is it? If you would post that, I could verify whether your claim that they do indeed advocate reducing spending from time to time has any credence. If it does, I'll eat my hat.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. You just can't accept that you made a strawman, can you? That's the point we are discussing here. Until that has been dealt with, I have no reason to continue engaging you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

Lol. You just can't accept that you made a strawman, can you? That's the point we are discussing here. Until that has been dealt with, I have no reason to continue engaging you.

I did not make a strawman. You need to read up on what a strawman is. I never said you cited or quoted Krugman, nor did I ever mischaracterize your argument.

I used Krugman as an example of prominent economists who hold the "spend spend spend" position in the economic debate. I did not say YOU relied on him. I don't know who the fuck you relied on, because you're dodging. But, he's the kind of guy that folks adopting your position often rely on, and ultimately he (a) never advocates reduced spending, and (b) a social/political dog in the hunt.

That can't possibly be a strawman since I never attributed it to you.

You are free to make your own argument, but all you've said is something to the effect of "I thought I put this to bed a long time ago." Well, you haven't. And, I guarantee the only way you can believe you have is by not knowing what you're talking about.

So, who's your source?

[Warren Dew]

Lol, says the guy who quoted the "Austrian economists" as an authoritative source.

You seem to have failed to read accurately.

So you didn't mention Austrian economists?

Mentioned them? Sure. Quoted them as an "authoritative source"? No; in fact I pointed out some of the errors in associated philosophy.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. You just can't accept that you made a strawman, can you? That's the point we are discussing here. Until that has been dealt with, I have no reason to continue engaging you.

I did not make a strawman. You need to read up on what a strawman is. I never said you cited or quoted Krugman, nor did I ever mischaracterize your argument.

I used Krugman as an example of prominent economists who hold the "spend spend spend" position in the economic debate. I did not say YOU relied on him. I don't know who the fuck you relied on, because you're dodging. But, he's the kind of guy that folks adopting your position often rely on, and ultimately he (a) never advocates reduced spending, and (b) a social/political dog in the hunt.

That can't possibly be a strawman since I never attributed it to you.

You are free to make your own argument, but all you've said is something to the effect of "I thought I put this to bed a long time ago." Well, you haven't. And, I guarantee the only way you can believe you have is by not knowing what you're talking about.

So, who's your source?

FFS. You said: "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending." and then you went on to debunk my point based on the faults in following the reasonings of people who "never advocate smaller spending". As "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending." is a total fiction made up by you, that is indeed a strawman, and your following argument was based around knocking that strawman down. Fail.

[pErvinalia]

Lol, says the guy who quoted the "Austrian economists" as an authoritative source.

You seem to have failed to read accurately.

So you didn't mention Austrian economists?

Mentioned them? Sure. Quoted them as an "authoritative source"? No; in fact I pointed out some of the errors in associated philosophy.

You said that they were correct in predicting the housing bubble as a means to boost the credibility of the anarcho-capitalist side versus the left-anarchist side.

[Coito ergo sum]

Lol. You just can't accept that you made a strawman, can you? That's the point we are discussing here. Until that has been dealt with, I have no reason to continue engaging you.

I did not make a strawman. You need to read up on what a strawman is. I never said you cited or quoted Krugman, nor did I ever mischaracterize your argument.

I used Krugman as an example of prominent economists who hold the "spend spend spend" position in the economic debate. I did not say YOU relied on him. I don't know who the fuck you relied on, because you're dodging. But, he's the kind of guy that folks adopting your position often rely on, and ultimately he (a) never advocates reduced spending, and (b) a social/political dog in the hunt.

That can't possibly be a strawman since I never attributed it to you.

You are free to make your own argument, but all you've said is something to the effect of "I thought I put this to bed a long time ago." Well, you haven't. And, I guarantee the only way you can believe you have is by not knowing what you're talking about.

So, who's your source?

FFS. You said: "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending." and then you went on to debunk my point based on the faults in following the reasonings of people who "never advocate smaller spending". As "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending." is a total fiction made up by you, that is indeed a strawman, and your following argument was based around knocking that strawman down. Fail.

Yes -- I believe those are the guys you're listening to.

If you are relying on guys who advocate reducing spending, cite them. Stop with your usual evasions.