Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Roundy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 26, 2017, 11:19:08 PM »
Based on what I've seen so far I will benefit from this tax plan. No surprise there really; sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal left who remembers how awesome taxes were under GW.

Now if he would do away with that pesky Consumer Financial Protection Bureau like he promised...

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 26, 2017, 03:42:59 AM »
I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment?

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Well, I mean, it's awful convenient.  I don't criticize him for it as much as Trekky does (stop the press, a politician is looking out for his own interests) but, you know, in the end he is looking out for his own interests with this move, both politically and personally.  Surely you see that?

I don't think anything more can be construed from Trekky's comment than that, that it's convenient that it happens to help him a great deal in his own business dealings.  There's nothing outlandish about the idea that he campaigned on promises that he knew would be beneficial to himself in the first place. 


3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 26, 2017, 02:52:40 AM »
I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment? 

Also, I think you might just be tired because I never said you criticized Trekky's link.  Get some sleep, Tom.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 26, 2017, 02:44:45 AM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Still not seeing where you draw that conclusion.  In fact the article Trekky links to directly states that he's trying to make good on his campaign promises so unless you think Trekky linked an article he didn't actually read I think we can safely assume he knows that it was one of Trump's key promises in the election.

Quote
By restating core pieces of his campaign plan, Mr. Trump is trying to frame the coming tax debate in Congress.

Perhaps you should have read the article yourself before attempting to pass judgment.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 26, 2017, 01:54:24 AM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 8values
« on: April 25, 2017, 02:58:12 AM »

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2017, 04:36:28 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html



This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.

8
Thank you for being a disgrace to the human species.

I see my advice has been wasted. Very well, you can have the week-long ban you were promised.

How dictatorial, authoritarian, and dystopian of you.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 16, 2017, 04:24:31 PM »
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?

Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic?  Try better.
Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread.  Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof.  Look at the equinox thread thread that I started.  TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox.  He required data from every place on the earth.  He disregarded link after link that showed my claim. 

If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence.  I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots.  If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.

You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.

If we could confine things to what's happening in this thread and the people commenting in this thread, it would be swell.  Whatever Tom demanded of you in another thread is irrelevant.  Is Tom even in this thread anywhere?  You are free to stop taking Tom seriously if he really makes a demand of you that doesn't make sense; it is your prerogative; we fucking all do from time to time.  Similarly, if you are going to demand something that is blatantly impossible, why shouldn't we conclude that you've stopped taking the subject seriously?  What kind of response is that supposed to engender?  Ridicule for making such a dumb request is the only thing that makes sense.  If you want to give up on the debate that's fine, believe it or not you can do so without conceding that you are wrong, that's also your prerogative.

But if you and your cohort are going to demand something so dumb, a response like the one I just gave you is the only one you can reasonably expect.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 16, 2017, 02:24:56 AM »
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?

Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic?  Try better.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth map is wrong
« on: April 14, 2017, 06:22:56 AM »
Can you ever really be sure what intikam is saying?

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 14, 2017, 04:32:22 AM »
Look at the full quote. It is entirely clear that he is talking about warfare:

Well... yeah.  I acknowledged that.
I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment.

I don't think he was intentionally insulting millions of Jews.  Insensitivity doesn't have to be intentional. 

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 14, 2017, 02:19:20 AM »
It's actually pretty obvious what he was saying. Spicer said that even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He is saying that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as a method of warfare like Syria is doing. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in the battlefield against the Allies, or against their cities, which is a much discussed topic among military historians, as their use could have altered the outcome of the war. This is clearly what Spicer is referencing.

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all. The gas used in the Holocaust is used under a different context to what Syria is doing; the execution of prisoners (however unjust), not a weapon of warfare. It is transparent and ignorant that liberals would nitpick to that level, asserting that  the comments are insensitive, some even comparing it to Holocaust denial.

That's the tactic: to create outrage where there is none, to take something entirely reasonable and innocuous and blow it out of proportion and give it hidden meanings. Pathetic.

I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment. 

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 13, 2017, 07:10:40 PM »
He's bluffing. What he's threatening to do will actually result in less uninsured than the bill he wants them to approve. It makes no sense. If I was a Dem in Congress I'd be like lol, k.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 12, 2017, 10:31:53 PM »
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.

So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.

You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« on: April 11, 2017, 06:05:38 PM »
Quote
And things don't self-create, either. I DO understand that you are not that bright, but do TRY to come up with better arguments than that!

What created God?

17
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Introduction Page - comments wanted
« on: April 10, 2017, 04:59:24 AM »
To be perfectly honest, its simply what I learned in the process of getting my degree in History. I DO have a degree in Philosophy, and I AM aware that different disciplines do vary in their styles. History and Philosophy vary in the way in which one cites "footnotes", for example. In History, one literally uses footnotes, or if absolutely necessary, endnotes, although this latter is discouraged. In Philosophy, one uses parenthetical notation. As far as citing titles of books, AFAIK, both disciplines underline them.

I don't think you will get your head ripped off for using italics, but in my experience, they are more commonly used for things like the proper names of ships and the like. Simply my input, based on my own academic  experience. Just trying to help.

Don't mean to undermine your expertise, it's just that I googled "underline book titles" and got back a bunch of results talking about how the proper thing to do is to put book titles in italics.

18
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Introduction Page - comments wanted
« on: April 10, 2017, 03:57:09 AM »
USUALLY a book title is indicated by underlining it, but italics is permitted. Quoting it is also allowed by some authorities. The best option would be to underline it.

What authority says underlining is preferable to italics?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 02:27:58 AM »
Definitely hypocritical.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 08, 2017, 08:34:53 PM »
Watch, he'll ban me without responding to the question.

I probably would.  There is an appropriate place to address issues with moderation, and there's a reason it's against the rules to do so within the middle of a thread.  Although if your only issue is that he didn't contribute to the discussion it's far from a valid concern.  As a moderator it's his duty to moderate appropriately whether he has something relevant to contribute to a thread or not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >