Originally Posted By X-san ***I would define it as someone who makes personal attacks because they aren't smart enough to understand the argument.*** Well, I'd never claim to be the smartest guy in the room, but I do think it's interesting how you've changed your tune. At this point whenever you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, suddenly your opponent lacks intelligence and doesn't even understand what they're talking about. Yeah, that'd be everyone who disagrees with you. Stupid and ignorant.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Democrats always adjust spending upward - they are not the party of fiscal discipline" No Douglas that is NOT true. No matter how many times you say it. The last Demcratic president DID NOT spiral spending upwards. He brought spending under control was bringing the deficit left by the "{deficit spending' philosphy of the 2 previous republican presidents. Then W. came in and turned it all around back to incredible deficit spending. What you are saying is exactly oposite of reality. It is a flat out lie. You couldn't be more factually incorrect.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "<But it's the truth. You ARE becoming a parody of yourself.> No, the truth is you have been and still are an obnoxious idiot." Instead of responding like this every time and proving our point, maybe, since so many people are telling you this, it's advisable to do some reflecting and consider whether it's true.
Originally Posted By dshyates No, Doug is just amazed that so many people just can't see the "truth". Doug believes his way is rightous. And everyone else who disagrees with him are too stupid and liberal to get it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And that's the supreme arrogance coming through. He doesn't have opinions, he espouses the "truth." That's dangerous thinking, to be sure.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Instead of responding like this every time and proving our point, maybe, since so many people are telling you this, it's advisable to do some reflecting and consider whether it's true.> Maybe, instead of constantly making personal comments, you could stick to the issues.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<#277 disproved your claim that "the truth is that President Reagan raised both military spending and revenues, but not by as much as the Democrats raised domestic.">> <So you admit it didn't show what you claimed earlier?> Nice try. They are two separate issues. If I respond to one, it doesn't mean I'm wrong on the other. <It also didn't disprove my claim. Under President Reagan, military spending did go up about 140 billion. Revenue, meanwhile, went up almost 500 billion. So military spending can't be blamed.> Blatant moving of the goalposts. You said "the truth is that President Reagan raised both military spending and revenues, but not by as much as the Democrats raised domestic." Note the last part of the sentence. I disproved that. Discretionary spending was CUT. So what, exactly did Democrats raise? You can't count things like interest on the national debt (itself raised because of Reagan's deficits). <<Meanwhile, I asked you for evidence ages ago that Reagan ever submitted a budget that the Democrats changed more than a few percentage points in overall spending. You couldn't. So the point remains - the Congresses tinkered and restored a few cuts, re-shuffled a couple of others, but essentially accepted the Reagan budgets as offered, which included larger deficits than any under Carter or Ford or Nixon... If you can show otherwise, please do.>> <No, that point doesn't remain. You don't get to define what constitutes "tinkering". Increasing a budget by a few percentage points is much more than "tinkering".> No, it isn't. And I didn't think you could show any different. <The bottom line is Democrats always adjust spending upward - they are not the party of fiscal discipline.> The bottom line is that you are too blinded by ideology to see that NEITHER party has been terrific on fiscal discipline, but the Republicans lately have been even worse than the Democrats.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Instead of responding like this every time and proving our point, maybe, since so many people are telling you this, it's advisable to do some reflecting and consider whether it's true.> SPP, I tried this long ago. Doug used to be much better than this, and often worth debating, before he became a parody of himself. I asked him to consider, since so many people were telling him this, and lampooning him, and asking him to cut out the nonsense, that perhaps - just perhaps - he might step back, take an honest look at himself, and see if there was anything to it. I sincerely hoped that he would, because Doug without the nonsense is worth debating. But he wouldn't take an honest look, and just lashed out, as he's done here again.