| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Vets Sue Rumsfeld | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 25 2005, 11:37 AM (586 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 26 2005, 01:03 PM Post #31 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Yet you won't give back the tax cut you blame the Bush administration for. That is hypocrisy. It is not a personal attack, but rather a definition and an observation. You are exhibiting signs of hypocrisy. Figure it out. You personally benefit from something about which you complain. I don't think anyone would disagree with my assessment (well, except for you, but that is because the truth hurts). There is a solution, as listed above. Figure out how much you and your family benefit from the Bush tax cuts, write a check, and send it back with an explanation why you can not take it. It is called "standing on principle." |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | May 26 2005, 01:07 PM Post #32 |
|
Unregistered
|
As I said, responsible tax policy is the solution. Sending my check to the government will not accomplish this. There's nothing hypocritical about it. In fact if you want a real example of hypocracy, how about a person who states he is pro-military and yet has no problem with the fact that his tax cut necessitates cutting veterans' benefits. |
| ^ | |
| Fesarius | May 26 2005, 02:24 PM Post #33 |
|
Admiral
|
Gvok, You never know. Sending in your check might help out a bit.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | May 26 2005, 02:28 PM Post #34 |
|
Unregistered
|
Nope. I will stick with electing officials who favor rational and responsible tax policies. |
| ^ | |
| Fesarius | May 26 2005, 02:59 PM Post #35 |
|
Admiral
|
Gvok, Okay, but you can still mail in your check and continue to campaign for those that you feel ought instead to hold the oval office.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | May 26 2005, 03:04 PM Post #36 |
|
Unregistered
|
Mailing my check in would only encourage them to continue with their present policy. |
| ^ | |
| Fesarius | May 26 2005, 03:14 PM Post #37 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Gvok, Not if you marked your check "Pay to the order of the Democratic Party Only."
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | May 26 2005, 03:18 PM Post #38 |
|
Unregistered
|
I take your response as an acknowledgement of the rediculousness and specious nature of that particular argument.
|
| ^ | |
| Dr. Noah | May 26 2005, 03:31 PM Post #39 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
This is a ridiculous argument. I suppose for whatever we support we should send money to the government and ask them to earmark the check for that policy. Please. I doubt very many people would be sending checks to help bailout private industries like airlines, but nonetheless, it's something the government does regardless of what you or I think about it. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 26 2005, 04:10 PM Post #40 |
|
Admiral
|
Gvok, Yes, I do. My memory is quite good, even if I play coy on occasion.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 26 2005, 04:42 PM Post #41 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You must be talking about someone else, because you certainly are not talking about me. I have never said any such thing. If you are, I am calling you a liar flat out. gvok, you lost this one. . Tax cuts are NOT cutting veteran's benefits. You cited ONE location and you don't know all of the circumstances behind it. Are those residents afforded care at any other location? Is this part of a consolidation to afford ALL veterans better care? Face it, you do not know, |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | May 26 2005, 04:47 PM Post #42 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Administrative Comment Gentlemen if this cannot be discussed civilly the thread will be closed. End Administrative Comment |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 26 2005, 04:52 PM Post #43 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You might wish to edit his baiting comment above, which is in my quote... (Please remove as you see fit) |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | May 26 2005, 05:51 PM Post #44 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Admiralbill - which baiting response would that be. The one where he responds to YOU calling him a hypocrite???????????? |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 26 2005, 06:12 PM Post #45 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Yes, because I'm stating fact and he's just retorting with a lie. Read what I wrote. (All of the posts, I mean.) 1) He has options which he could pursue yet chooses not to out of his own self-interest. I called him on it. 2) He chose to respond by attempting to attribute something to me that is factually untrue. He is using an ad hominem fallacy (since I might support something I must be against something else) to try and state it. This would mean that I am 1) not baiting, and 2) he is. Enjoy your supper |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


2:05 PM Jul 11