Easy if you reduce the amount of money it takes to run the government you can take the excess in taxes and use it to pay off the debt. This isnt rocket surgery.
You already admitted that you misrepresented them in one of your earlier responses...
sorry, but I feel absolutely no compulsion to repeat the republican's incredible lame arguments
You admitted that you would not actually use the arguments conservatives actually use because to YOU they are "incredibly lame". So in other words you knowingly used arguments that YOU came up with on behalf of conservatives in your arguments instead of using actual arguments a conservative would use. THAT IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING.
The fact you cant even admit it is pretty funny and just goes to show how close minded you are.
Intentionally misrepresenting a group or persons arguments by stating they are something they are not, is dishonest. It is called lying no matter how you want to justify it.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
You're wrong even by your own articles definition.By your own admission you misrepresented the conservatives arguments because you didnt want to "repeat the republican's incredible lame arguments" and instead substituted your own arguments against Conservatives. Now if you misrepresent someone elses arguments intentionally that would seem to me to be dishonest.
This would be much like if I said this: "Democrats : Largely support a women's right to have an abortion, because they hate babies and want them to die"
So in conclusion your bias is so strong you may be incapable of seeing how intentionally misrepresenting another persons opinion is considered dishonest or even fitting the description of a straw-man logical fallacy.
It is a straw man because you paint your oppositions argument to be simplistic and evil. Essentially all of the things you labelled with "Democrat" are either stated opinions or actually valid arguments. The points you labeled as "Republican" were your thinly veiled arguments AGAINST republicans. Which I also might add you skipped over the actual arguments Conservatives have for most of those topics in favor of just making them look bad. So yes, they are straw-man arguments, and using them knowingly in an attempt to persuade others is considered academic dishonesty. and I did explain myself I only said I dont have the time or attention span to re-write your list to make it actually representative.
I have neither the time nor attention span to recount even a good portion of the ways in which the parties differ. But even If I just whipped up a quick list I would not try and pass off a list of straw man arguments for one party vs idealized arguments of the other. It is academically dishonest.
Thats all well and good that you can point out a few places that "Looks like marketing/advertising speak" and ignore the fact that they give you all the tools and knowledge to do it yourself and replicate the success of the "ultra-frugal Storage Pods". Hell they even give you some of the issues you will run into using one of the free alternatives AND EVEN GIVE YOU THE SOLUTIONS FOR THEM. OH! But there are a few places where they mention the product that they run off the very system they told you how to build and could make yourself. That must mean they are evil corporate fat-cats trying to cheat you out of your hard earned dollars. DAMN THEM FOR PROVIDING COST EFFECTIVE BACKUP SPACE!!!!!!!! How DARE they seek to earn a living. I am guessing you would be fine with the "slashvertisment" if their service was free though.
You must be. They even GIVE you the free alternatives to their software. But in the same page they give you everything you need to do it yourself. You just have to add some hardware.
Did you notice how they even gave you the alternatives to their software? Essentially they are saying "We developed this for our own internal use and if you would LIKE to pay for it its cool. If you dont then there are these other free alternatives." But then again just because some company is mentioned in the article it MUST be a slashvertisment.
I completely agree. I use to enjoy multiplayer but when I got a real job I no longer had the time to devote to a game where I could get as good as the 14 year olds who dont do anything all day but play video games. The only game I have come close to actually getting good at in multiplayer in the last 10 years has been league of legends.
So I prefer a single player experience that I can start and stop as needed. Also I really hate people that trash talk in games. It makes a person look like an idiot.
Mass Effect 1&2, KOTOR 1&2, and even COD:MW 1&2 are great in single player! I wish the COD:MWs would actually have a longer single player campaign. Also they need to bring back the AC-130 Specter.
I watched a 20 year old kid stole out of his village every day across a minefield. The minefield had been there for 15 years and he knew it was there. I asked a local about it and most of the towns folk would just walk through the minefield to get to one of the neighboring villages. It was just an accepted danger. They could have walked a quarter mile out of their way to go around it, but they didnt. Well every week or 2 it would end poorly for some unlucky bastard, sometimes children.
It is not that these areas are not extremely dangerous, they just dont care.
We send quite a bit of aid to Afghanistan and all of that money seems to be filtered off by corruption before it ever reaches anyone actually in need. So Whos to say that money wouldnt have had a similar fate?
I hear if you say Darl McBrides name 3 times in a mirror he will appear and speak to you about his litigation techniques. A few days later you'll receive a cease and desist followed by a lawsuit about trade secrets from Microsoft.
I'm guessing that they are allowing people to join as they are adding capacity.
Also it is REALLY hard to deal with 50 million new users that all sign up, create profiles, upload photos, send messages, search through the other 50 million people so they can add them, create groups, make events and invite 100+ people in a single day if they opened it to everyone all at the same time on a brand new product.
It more sounds like they are just renaming products they own that are fairly successful and merging them for basic functionality that every social networking site has.
Not only that but the government taxes fuel a LOT. In the state of Indiana it is roughly 40 cents per gallon. Oil companies usually make roughly 5-6 cents per gallon. The government makes 5-8 times what the oil companies do on each gallon of gas.
Thats not true at all... A normal fragment of shrapnel travels roughly 4-5,000 feet per second with top end velocities of 25,000fps. Fast enough and with good enough armor penetration that up armored Humvees dont stop most shrapnel, they just lessen the impact.
Um, who do you think winds up doing the work? Ill give you a hint, you arent going to see even a first lieutenant out there slogging foam on tents... Also they dont get to just hire someone to come out and do it for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy if you reduce the amount of money it takes to run the government you can take the excess in taxes and use it to pay off the debt. This isnt rocket surgery.
You already admitted that you misrepresented them in one of your earlier responses...
sorry, but I feel absolutely no compulsion to repeat the republican's incredible lame arguments
You admitted that you would not actually use the arguments conservatives actually use because to YOU they are "incredibly lame". So in other words you knowingly used arguments that YOU came up with on behalf of conservatives in your arguments instead of using actual arguments a conservative would use. THAT IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING.
The fact you cant even admit it is pretty funny and just goes to show how close minded you are.
Intentionally misrepresenting a group or persons arguments by stating they are something they are not, is dishonest. It is called lying no matter how you want to justify it.
From your article:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
You're wrong even by your own articles definition.By your own admission you misrepresented the conservatives arguments because you didnt want to "repeat the republican's incredible lame arguments" and instead substituted your own arguments against Conservatives. Now if you misrepresent someone elses arguments intentionally that would seem to me to be dishonest.
This would be much like if I said this: "Democrats : Largely support a women's right to have an abortion, because they hate babies and want them to die"
So in conclusion your bias is so strong you may be incapable of seeing how intentionally misrepresenting another persons opinion is considered dishonest or even fitting the description of a straw-man logical fallacy.
It is a straw man because you paint your oppositions argument to be simplistic and evil. Essentially all of the things you labelled with "Democrat" are either stated opinions or actually valid arguments. The points you labeled as "Republican" were your thinly veiled arguments AGAINST republicans. Which I also might add you skipped over the actual arguments Conservatives have for most of those topics in favor of just making them look bad. So yes, they are straw-man arguments, and using them knowingly in an attempt to persuade others is considered academic dishonesty. and I did explain myself I only said I dont have the time or attention span to re-write your list to make it actually representative.
I have neither the time nor attention span to recount even a good portion of the ways in which the parties differ. But even If I just whipped up a quick list I would not try and pass off a list of straw man arguments for one party vs idealized arguments of the other. It is academically dishonest.
Wow, those werent biased descriptions at all.
Thats all well and good that you can point out a few places that "Looks like marketing/advertising speak" and ignore the fact that they give you all the tools and knowledge to do it yourself and replicate the success of the "ultra-frugal Storage Pods". Hell they even give you some of the issues you will run into using one of the free alternatives AND EVEN GIVE YOU THE SOLUTIONS FOR THEM. OH! But there are a few places where they mention the product that they run off the very system they told you how to build and could make yourself. That must mean they are evil corporate fat-cats trying to cheat you out of your hard earned dollars. DAMN THEM FOR PROVIDING COST EFFECTIVE BACKUP SPACE!!!!!!!! How DARE they seek to earn a living. I am guessing you would be fine with the "slashvertisment" if their service was free though.
You must be. They even GIVE you the free alternatives to their software. But in the same page they give you everything you need to do it yourself. You just have to add some hardware.
Did you notice how they even gave you the alternatives to their software? Essentially they are saying "We developed this for our own internal use and if you would LIKE to pay for it its cool. If you dont then there are these other free alternatives." But then again just because some company is mentioned in the article it MUST be a slashvertisment.
It's not a slashvertisement if they tell you how to build it yourself.....
Twilight Princess took you 4 hours!?!?!?!?! I have 25 hours invested on my Wii and still havnt finished it.
Also think Ocarina of Time. WAY more than 15 hours of game play.
I completely agree. I use to enjoy multiplayer but when I got a real job I no longer had the time to devote to a game where I could get as good as the 14 year olds who dont do anything all day but play video games. The only game I have come close to actually getting good at in multiplayer in the last 10 years has been league of legends.
So I prefer a single player experience that I can start and stop as needed. Also I really hate people that trash talk in games. It makes a person look like an idiot.
Mass Effect 1&2, KOTOR 1&2, and even COD:MW 1&2 are great in single player! I wish the COD:MWs would actually have a longer single player campaign. Also they need to bring back the AC-130 Specter.
That isnt true at all. =\
I watched a 20 year old kid stole out of his village every day across a minefield. The minefield had been there for 15 years and he knew it was there. I asked a local about it and most of the towns folk would just walk through the minefield to get to one of the neighboring villages. It was just an accepted danger. They could have walked a quarter mile out of their way to go around it, but they didnt. Well every week or 2 it would end poorly for some unlucky bastard, sometimes children.
It is not that these areas are not extremely dangerous, they just dont care.
I would mod you up if I had the points. =\
We send quite a bit of aid to Afghanistan and all of that money seems to be filtered off by corruption before it ever reaches anyone actually in need. So Whos to say that money wouldnt have had a similar fate?
But how could they keep an eye on us with their head so far up their own ass?
I hear if you say Darl McBrides name 3 times in a mirror he will appear and speak to you about his litigation techniques. A few days later you'll receive a cease and desist followed by a lawsuit about trade secrets from Microsoft.
I would liken it more to the "Notes" feature which is extremely blog like.
I'm guessing that they are allowing people to join as they are adding capacity. Also it is REALLY hard to deal with 50 million new users that all sign up, create profiles, upload photos, send messages, search through the other 50 million people so they can add them, create groups, make events and invite 100+ people in a single day if they opened it to everyone all at the same time on a brand new product.
It more sounds like they are just renaming products they own that are fairly successful and merging them for basic functionality that every social networking site has.
Not only that but the government taxes fuel a LOT. In the state of Indiana it is roughly 40 cents per gallon. Oil companies usually make roughly 5-6 cents per gallon. The government makes 5-8 times what the oil companies do on each gallon of gas.
I would much rather they censor anything bitcoin.
Thats not true at all... A normal fragment of shrapnel travels roughly 4-5,000 feet per second with top end velocities of 25,000fps. Fast enough and with good enough armor penetration that up armored Humvees dont stop most shrapnel, they just lessen the impact.
Um, who do you think winds up doing the work? Ill give you a hint, you arent going to see even a first lieutenant out there slogging foam on tents... Also they dont get to just hire someone to come out and do it for them.