Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
March 03, 2015, 02:08:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I'm really starting to like Scott Walker  (Read 1193 times)
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 26292


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #75 on: February 27, 2015, 12:00:18 PM »

I asked you a simple question about whether you could actually proved what Maddow said was true. It was a request for more information.  You reply was to claim that Maddow must be right because she was is on TV.  You committed yet another logical fallacy.

false

I claimed I presumed she was right because she is a news show and she provided sources for her claim and it had been out there for awhile (more of a standard than almost anything on this board)

If you read my prior post you will see the source of her claim about a surplus and there is no argument from Politifact that the shortfall was a paltry 137 million (care to guess what Walkers current projected deficit will be)

please show a definition of "request for more information"

Here a definition of ad hominem attack

let me know if you recognize it

Quote
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[7] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[8]
Ad hominem arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals, for example, by pointing to the feet of clay of the authority being pointed to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Report to moderator   Logged
Princess L
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10463


I stop for turtles


« Reply #76 on: February 27, 2015, 12:02:03 PM »

It was never a $3 billion debt. Rather, we faced a $3.6 billion budget shortfall ~ the difference between tax revenue projections and what agencies planned to spend in the next budget.
Report to moderator   Logged

:
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 13761

Team Shizzo


« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2015, 12:03:54 PM »

false

I claimed I presumed she was right because she is a news show and she provided sources for her claim and it had been out there for awhile (more of a standard than almost anything on this board)

If you read my prior post you will see the source of her claim about a surplus and there is no argument from Politifact that the shortfall was a paltry 137 million (care to guess what Walkers current projected deficit will be)

please show a definition of "request for more information"

Here a definition of ad hominem attack

let me know if you recognize it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem



Same thing, you assumed she was right and her sources were accurate based on her position and her political perspective.  You neither bothered to check her facts or check the links she provided for accuracy.  

I don't have strawman as my name while repeatedly committing a multitude of logical fallacies.  And if you'd like to see Ad hominems just read the majority of your posts in this thread.

Report to moderator   Logged

A
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11920


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2015, 12:09:46 PM »

 Roll Eyes
false

I claimed I presumed she was right because she is a news show and she provided sources for her claim and it had been out there for awhile (more of a standard than almost anything on this board)

If you read my prior post you will see the source of her claim about a surplus and there is no argument from Politifact that the shortfall was a paltry 137 million (care to guess what Walkers current projected deficit will be)

please show a definition of "request for more information"

Here a definition of ad hominem attack

let me know if you recognize it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 26292


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2015, 12:28:20 PM »

It was never a $3 billion debt. Rather, we faced a $3.6 billion budget shortfall ~ the difference between tax revenue projections and what agencies planned to spend in the next budget.

OK, I've now read various things that support the 3.6 billion number (give or take) and has a projected 1.8 billion gap
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-state-budget-shortfall-projected-at-nearly-18-billion-b99345660z1-274364501.html

Quote
As we have noted in the past, incoming governors often seek to make the problem large so they can come off as budget-cutting heroes when they submit their plan. Governors leaving office have an incentive to downplay shortfalls to burnish their reputations for fiscal responsibility.

In terms of size, the shortfall that Walker projects is nothing unusual over the last decade. For instance, Doyle estimated a $3.2 billion deficit heading into 2003-2005, and at least $5.4 billion heading into 2009-2011.

The shortfalls are owing in large part to changes in how much money comes in through income and sales tax collections -- which are dependent on the economy among other factors.


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/nov/15/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-he-turned-36-billion-deficit/
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 26292


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2015, 12:29:22 PM »

Same thing, you assumed she was right and her sources were accurate based on her position and her political perspective.  You neither bothered to check her facts or check the links she provided for accuracy.  

I don't have strawman as my name while repeatedly committing a multitude of logical fallacies.  And if you'd like to see Ad hominems just read the majority of your posts in this thread.



criticizing my screen name

ad hominem much?

please show a definition of "request for more information"
Report to moderator   Logged
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 13761

Team Shizzo


« Reply #81 on: February 27, 2015, 12:37:21 PM »

criticizing my screen name

ad hominem much?

please show a definition of "request for more information"


You presented the Maddow video has being undisputable truth.  I asked you about the veracity of the information Maddow presented in hopes that you would provide the information to myself and others reading this thread.  You responded by admitted you didn't have further information and that such a request was unnecessary because Maddow was on tv therefore she must not be questioned.  Whether I use an ad hominem is irrelevant.  I don't call myself strawman.  If you want examples of ad hominem attacks read your own replies to 333.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 26292


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #82 on: February 27, 2015, 03:31:14 PM »


You presented the Maddow video has being undisputable truth.  I asked you about the veracity of the information Maddow presented in hopes that you would provide the information to myself and others reading this thread.  You responded by admitted you didn't have further information and that such a request was unnecessary because Maddow was on tv therefore she must not be questioned.  Whether I use an ad hominem is irrelevant.  I don't call myself strawman.  If you want examples of ad hominem attacks read your own replies to 333.

you used ad hominem in this thread and 333 uses it every day (just go read his posts directed at me the last two days)

now can you produce of a definition of "request for more information" or not

just find it online and post a link and then we can see if it applies or not
Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7039


MICHAEL WESTON


« Reply #83 on: February 28, 2015, 11:35:47 AM »

It was never a $3 billion debt. Rather, we faced a $3.6 billion budget shortfall ~ the difference between tax revenue projections and what agencies planned to spend in the next budget.

Racist post reported.
Report to moderator   Logged
2Thick
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1120


Anabolic 4 Life!


« Reply #84 on: February 28, 2015, 01:00:05 PM »

According to your logic anyone who appears in front of a camera deserves to be believed. You've just validated every piece of fox news video 333 has every posted.

Also, this is another logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

"News"? If you needed any further proof that there are trolls amongst us, you just found it.  Grin

Maybe next we'll read again that the NBPP didn't intimidate any voters, or that doubling the minimum wage won't increase unemployment?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU</a>




It's not government's job to create jobs in the private (non-govt contractor) sector, nor should they dictate wages.

They can facilitate economic growth by reducing taxes and regulations. Wages go up when there is more business activity, and businesses must compete for workers' services. Of course a secure border and a more favorable business environment might help.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-troubling-decline-of-american-business-dynamism/375353/

When you start taxing people and corps at 40-50% or more, they will either go elsewhere or produce less - especially when govt provides incentives or additional disincentives.

When Walmart bumps up its entry level hourly wage, it will make it up somehow - layoffs, decreased wages at higher levels, increased prices, perhaps even store closings, etc.

When you start paying entry level fast food workers $15-20 an hour, businesses will lay off workers, increase prices, and in many cases shut down when they're small.

You can always cite a "study" that looked at a govt contractor like Boeing or union-controlled manufacturers who start everybody out at $20-30 or more an hour and say that raising the minimum won't directly impact that particular company - at least not right away, perhaps.

But it's just common sense that such a thing will directly impact many other businesses, which anyone who actually owned or ran a business or even just had a little formal or informal business education would know.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 87215


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2015, 01:28:24 PM »

why didn't the DOJ prosecute those 2 idiots at the polls?  Case dismissed in Dec 2008.  Disgusting.  Lock them up.
Report to moderator   Logged

Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 13761

Team Shizzo


« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2015, 01:35:42 PM »

why didn't the DOJ prosecute those 2 idiots at the polls?  Case dismissed in Dec 2008.  Disgusting.  Lock them up.

Because Holder doesn't believe whites can experience racism or racial intimidation.   He's said it outright.  At the time there were several black members of getbig who defended these two fools and denied they were intending to intimidate voters.  I may be wrong but I thought you defended them as well.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 87215


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 28, 2015, 02:04:40 PM »

Because Holder doesn't believe whites can experience racism or racial intimidation.   He's said it outright.  At the time there were several black members of getbig who defended these two fools and denied they were intending to intimidate voters.  I may be wrong but I thought you defended them as well.

Huh

Dec 2008.   holder wasn't in power yet, obama wasn't in power yet.  

Bush was still in power.  Bush's DOJ is the one you should be blaming.
Report to moderator   Logged

Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 13761

Team Shizzo


« Reply #88 on: February 28, 2015, 02:05:31 PM »

Huh

Dec 2008.   holder wasn't in power yet, obama wasn't in power yet.  

Bush was still in power.  Bush's DOJ is the one you should be blaming.

Sorry I meant when it happened again in 2012
Report to moderator   Logged

A
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 87215


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2015, 02:08:54 PM »

Sorry I meant when it happened again in 2012

i would firehose any asshole that blocked voting booths.  for sure.  Just knock them down hard.
Report to moderator   Logged

2Thick
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1120


Anabolic 4 Life!


« Reply #90 on: March 01, 2015, 01:58:39 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430

Sorry, I was busy watching the "news".


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pURI1TGHYWU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pURI1TGHYWU</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriSB0nwzgw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriSB0nwzgw</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2lUGZx2mps" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2lUGZx2mps</a>
Report to moderator   Logged

A
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11347


Getbig!


« Reply #91 on: March 02, 2015, 09:14:47 AM »

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!