Skip to main content

View Diary: The least bad option: Going over the artificial fiscal cliff (388 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The insinuation that you speak of (0+ / 0-)

    is just a very clear red herring fallacy.

    Topic A: Support of a deal over not supporting a deal.
    Topic B (red herring): Levels of caring being made the discussion, under the guise that they were spoken but insinuated.

    It is best to deal with the statements people do make, not the ones you defensively infer them to mean and then argue against.

    They don;t like that either.

    They want to be free to berate us without response.

    That's not going to happen.

    So this really isn't about the logical disagreements but about the need to respond and taking disagreement personally and arguing back in ad hominem terms. (yes, also ad hominem)
    •  Whats this got to do with you? (0+ / 0-)
      •  I believe you have falsely attributed (0+ / 0-)

        characteristics to the arguments of others. It's nothing personal, Armando. I read it and I disagreed on logically consistent terms. Feel free to disagree using specific examples, friendo.

        •  Logic is in the eye of the beholder I guess (0+ / 0-)
          •  In what way, precisely (0+ / 0-)

            is a red herring fallacy in the eye of the beholder? Usually those who wouldn't behold it as such are the ones committing to them :P

            •  Is this a serious comment? (0+ / 0-)

              Argument by assertion is the phrase you need to look up here.

              After you look up ad hominem.

              •  You never formally contradicted what I said. (0+ / 0-)

                So argument by assertion doesn't apply here. "What's it to you" and "logic is in the eye of the beholder' isn't a factual rebuttal to a fact based assertion that you committed to a red herring fallacy.

                •  Consider this a formal contradiction (0+ / 0-)

                  Again, asserting that something is "fact based" does not make it fact based.

                  This is a basic concept.

                  •  I have already previously invited you to disagree (0+ / 0-)

                    and always in a substantive way. That was not a formal contradiction and you know it wasn't. I don't really care if you don't want to, but what profit is it to you to act macho if you're not going to even remotely make a good discussion of it? Is this how you represent the site and your values? What does that say about either if it is?

                    There are a lot of people here who care about the unemployed and don't consider them pawns in some fiscal cliff game. Their fears are valid and justified. To try to make that about you is beyond reason.

                    •  A good discussion of what? (0+ / 0-)

                      I've invited you to discuss the substance of my post at least 10 times.

                      Your second graf is a nonsequitor. The fiscal cliff is not a game and involves a lot of moving parts, including extending UI.

                      I recommend to you again to read my post.

                      •  Is that what the UI are to you? Moving parts? (0+ / 0-)

                        Precisely the pawn in a game mentality I was referring to. The lines on tax cut expiration are fairly stable and non-controversial, which is the main part of the negotiation anyway. Only the chained CPI was really worthy of controversy and that is dead by McCain and Co's admission.

                        I've invited you to discuss the substance of my post at least 10 times.
                        Do not confuse these replies with another. Yet another red herring attempt. We are discussing your attempt to potray posters as "insinuating" things against your character by simply disagreeing. Not whatever other discussion you and I might be having.

                        Besides, I have already addressed 11 times precisely why I have responded to your original "post" (as in diary), so the idea that I have someho dismissed it just because I disagree with its premise is increasingly ridiculous. In this case red herring and ridiculous.

                        But do go and tell me again how I refuse to engage. Clearly disagreeing with you can only happen if one doesn't read your posts and/or "get" them. No one could legitimately disagree...

                        •  Again I'll ignore the childish insults (0+ / 0-)

                          and stick to the substance, such as it is, of your post. You write:

                          "The lines on tax cut expiration are fairly stable and non-controversial, which is the main part of the negotiation anyway. Only the chained CPI was really worthy of controversy and that is dead by McCain and Co's admission."

                          This is just factually incorrect. Not intentionally I do not think.

                          The lines on tax expiration are not clear at all. The House GOP was unable to pass ending the tax cuts for millionaires.

                          Ending the sequester is a major piece of the negotiation.

                          The chained CPI seems out for now, thanks to pushback on it.

                          Ironically, the UI piece seems the part that is settled to me. The GOP seems on board with it in that "we agree on this when we agree on everything sense."

                          You may want to review those charts of yours because you are missing a lot.

                          •  An obvious tactic. (0+ / 0-)

                            You're going to call me childish in every post and then claim I'm being insulting. You are just baiting 101 all over this place, aren't you? lol

                            The lines on tax expiration are not clear at all. The House GOP was unable to pass ending the tax cuts for millionaires.
                            They are clear. The Democrats aren't going to accept above 500k and if the Republicans don't accept that then it's fiscal cliff. I'd say the choices are pretty clear on that one. The only thing that isn't clear is how suicidal the GOP is feeling. It doesn't make the fiscal cliff the least bad, it just makes it the arguably most likely.
                            Ending the sequester is a major piece of the negotiation.
                            A mistake if there ever was one. End the bludgeon. Keep a lot of the cuts, let the institutions such as the military largely pick where it comes from.
                            The chained CPI seems out for now, thanks to pushback on it.
                            Yup, agreed. With no pushback, it would have been there. A bit of a sad victory considering it's pretty much Obama's fault it was up for grabs to begin with.
                            Ironically, the UI piece seems the part that is settled to me. The GOP seems on board with it in that "we agree on this when we agree on everything sense.
                            It's settled if there is a deal. Fiscal cliff would mean no deal and  potentially no UI. I don't consider that least bad.

                            Which again, none of this has to do with the line of replies that are pertinent here. This particular line of discussion is you asserting people are insinuating you set puppies on fire or something because they disagree with you. So if you could get back on topic with the replies you yourself made, that'd be peachy keen.

                          •  In your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                            the lines are clear on taxes. You write:

                            "They are clear. The Democrats aren't going to accept above 500k and if the Republicans don't accept that then it's fiscal cliff. I'd say the choices are pretty clear on that one. The only thing that isn't clear is how suicidal the GOP is feeling. It doesn't make the fiscal cliff the least bad, it just makes it the arguably most likely."

                            That's interesting in that the House rejected raising taxes on person;s over a million.

                            If you are right, then we're arguing about nothing as we are going over the fiscal cliff.

                            Thus, everything else is just hot air from all of us.

                            I think you are wrong in that Dems had said 400k and I think they mean it. The math matter here. Too much revenue is lost by going to 500k.

                            I think 400k will be the number AFTER going over the cliff.

                            I think UI is extended AFTER going over the cliff.

                            I think the sequester is suspended AFTER going over the cliff.

                            Interestingly, that is the argument I presented in my poist, the one you did not read.

                            Final point, I write my replies, not you.

                            I'll choose to note your childish behavior when I see fit.

                          •  Again off topic for this line of posts but... (0+ / 0-)
                            If you are right, then we're arguing about nothing as we are going over the fiscal cliff.
                            We're arguing because of your need to respond. The only disagreement we have, beyond your emotion and baiting, on the other line of replies is over if a deal or a fiscal cliff preferable. That's it. All of those replies because you simply can't accept that I might feel differently over which is preferable. No all of us, just you primarily.
                            I think 400k will be the number AFTER going over the cliff.

                            I think UI is extended AFTER going over the cliff.

                            I think the sequester is suspended AFTER going over the cliff.

                            Interestingly, that is the argument I presented in my poist, the one you did not read.

                            I'm not enthused to find out. I'd rather have such deals happen before cliff. That, to my mind, is the least bad option. So again, I've always been on topic. You just refuse to accept that I think you're wrong on what is the least bad option. Rather amusing actually.
                            Final point, I write my replies, not you.

                            I'll choose to note your childish behavior when I see fit.

                            Said Armando to himself in a mirror in the morning, ready to log on to Daily Kos. :P
                          •  You don't get that deal (0+ / 0-)

                            before going over the cliff.

                            Maybe you'll read my post now for why I think so.

                          •  That's an opinion, not a fact. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'd prefer not to play games with peoples' lives if possible.

                            I've read your post and disagree with it. How many times will you need to be corrected before you accept it?

                          •  It's a comfort that you disagree (0+ / 0-)

                            Makes me more confidenct in my view.

                            As for "it's an opinion," REALLY?????

                            No kidding.

                          •  It's a fact you seem ill equipped to grasp. (0+ / 0-)

                            Otherwise one wonders why you get so emotional and accusatory when people disagree with it. Like as in the post that I originally argued against here in regards to the red herring.

                            For a guy for whom disagreement is comforting, you sure do get angry and vitriolic over it.

                          •  Heh (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                            Dude, you are delusional if you think emotion has anything to do with this on my part.

                            This is me being not mean.

                            But then, you are UID 319k.

                            You don;t know about that.

                          •  Ad hominem again. (0+ / 0-)

                            At least this time you're intentionally doing it. Bringing up UID as if it matters in any argument is textbook.

                            Dude, you are delusional if you think emotion has anything to do with this on my part.
                            Then by all means, show me you have no emotion, quite the distractions and deflections, and argue the original replies with maturity and clarity. I have a feeling you'll just keep doing what you're doing. More's the pity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Science (22)
  • Environment (22)
  • Law (19)
  • Spam (19)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site