What massive govt intrusion are GW limousine liberals trying to force on the little guys? I don't recall any proposals for the govt to seize automobiles, or force poor people to do anything against their wills. Unless you mean "force" them to choose between more gas-efficient vehicles and public transit?

No one wants to abandon the lifestyle we've been accustomed to, liberals no exception. I'll agree that the elite liberals are probably trying to insulate themselves from the effects of the more restrictive policies being considered. I have found zero evidence that they are using a "ruse" of free markets to protect their lifestyles while subjecting the rest of us to state-mandated totalitarianism. Again, methinks your instincts are outdone by your penchant for dramatic hyperbole.

I do not grok your analogy at all. Bono's personal fortune and his tax status have what to do with Third World debt? Besides, unless their laws have changed, artists don't have to pay taxes in Ireland--they value art.

__________________
"Until Philosophers are kings...cities will never have rest from their troubles." -Plato

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis

The Limousine Liberals usually advo***e increasing Gas Taxes so that petrol in the U.S. is as expensive as it is in Europe - their justifi***ion is to force people to use Mass Transit. I will posit that anyone who can conveniently use mass transit does so already. One cannot use if it doesn't exist - or if one's job and family responsibilities make a car necessary.

Then you aren't paying attention. They fly around in private jets when commercial flights are easily available, consuming far more fossil fuels per mile than if they went commercial, justify it with their "carbon credits" - and then lecture the rest of us to set our thermostats at 58F and wear heavy sweaters.

He lectures those of us who Pay The Taxes to fund the debt forgiveness - yet most of his income is completely sheltered from taxes. The Netherlands has become a tax haven for the very wealthy, especially entertainers who live off of royalty income. IOW, he's a frelling hypocrite.

Actually this article is quite intersting. Worth further study, I say.

__________________
Things to remember in Debate:
"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs."
- Carl Sagan

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

One more thing that the Irish have done to outpace Great Brittian since 1922.

__________________
Banned Before Bored

No they aren't. It is clearly accurate to state that liberals are for abortion.
How can you deny this?


Actually, I wanted examples, as in plural as your initial statement was in regards to "fallacies", as in plural.





And once again, for all our viewing pleasure, Sebastian beclowns himself....

I have little time to waste these days with fools like yourself. What causes you to erupt in such seething rage Sebastian? Is it that you know my point is right, and it just bothers you that the complete idiocy of the left has been pointed out by me?


Really? Lets take it point by point.

I said; What's hilarious is that these nutjobs now believe that global warming is a "moral issue"


Lets see if this is truth or fantasy.

Straight from the prophet, Algore, himself....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...7/ai_n16142522

OK. That's one for me, 0 for you.


Next;

all the while millions of abortions are performed annually

Lets see now...

46million per year.... Hmmmm.

That's 2 for me, 0 for you.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html


and believe the state should pay for them,

Here are the stats for which states have public funded abortion in the US.
Are you really going to argue that liberals want less public funding for abortions? Are you?
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverigh...s20040721.html

The Feminazi's at NARAL are pushing for it...
http://www.prochoiceny.org/s09issues/200310271.shtml

So that makes it 3 for me, 0 for you.

and they call it "choice".

Well it's pretty obvious which group believes abortion is a choice.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/
Isn't it?
It certainly is to any thinking person. Oh that's why you don't get it....

OK. That makes it 4 for me, 0 for you. Yet you call my statement a fantasy? Youre entire post was an exercise in self-delusion. You certainly have to do better than that if you want me to respond to you again. What was incorrect about my statement? Where does the fantasy lie in my statement? Point it out you little Terd.



LOL. I've yet to read any original thought from you. It seems your only capable of name calling. Anyone who reads the entirety of your posts can see this. You're just another bitter, rage filled leftist in a long line of bitter rage filled leftists that troll the internet, hour after hour, day after day.....Don't you work? Are my tax dollars supporting your lazy ass so you can sit at your computer and alternate between beating off to internet porn and arguing politics, hour after hour, day after day?
Here's an idea, go get a job, then go make some friends in real life...That may help you with your anger and rage issues.

LOL. I admit I do read the drudge report but that is simply a website that links to news articles. However, I don't watch O'Reilly, nor do I watch any television at all, with the exception of hockey games and occaisionally the Military, History or some other channel of that sort. You're going to have to find a new talking point....you guys have worn that one out, especially given the fact that it's incorrect.

Look man, everyone is entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the privilege. I'm pretty much through lowering myself down to your gutter dwelling level. Come up with an argument next time, make it remotely accurate, try to make it thought provoking (but I doubt your capable of that), and at least make an effort to be civil (which I know you are incapable of) then maybe I'll respond to you. If you choose to respond with more of your idiocy, which I predict you certainly will, so that you, like the child that you are, have to get the last word in, go right ahead and waste your time since it's obvious you have a ton of time to waste. One thing you can count on, you clown, is that I won't bother to respond.

Are you an idiot or just stupid? Read that line again and this time, try thinking. If you still don't get it, let me know, and I will explain it to you like the dumb ass you are.


Your argument is fallacious. I gave you an example of one fallacy of many that exists in that little gem.

Halliburton.

I predict a Sebastian response of Intolerable Length and Convoluted Logic.

__________________
Banned Before Bored

Here you go, Sam.

He denies this because not all liberals are "for abortion." Some think abortion is wrong but should still be legal, others think it should not be legal. As a generalization it is true that "most liberals" think a woman has the right to choose abortion, but it is not "clearly accurate" that "liberals are for abortion."

Just forgetful, or disingenuous? What you really said was:

I'll break it down for you. You connect two distinct issues (global warming and abortion) that are unrelated, then mash in a statement about the state paying for abortions (when the thread topic is Global Warming on Mars) and mock the word "choice" all in one big, clunky, barely comprehensible sentence. Global warming may or may not be a moral issue--just because Al Gore thinks so doesn't mean everyone does, but even if it is what does it have to do with abortion? If supporting abortion rights makes a person "immoral" in your eyes does that preclude them from having any moral or ethical positions? If so then I counter that any so-called Christians who oppose HPV vaccinations for girls are immoral and their stand on every other moral issue is invalid. And your judgement "what fucked up people..." sounds based in some deep-seated rage. What are you so enraged at, Timmy?

Sorry, but Al Gore doesn't get dragged down by incomprehensible non-logic like you just did. Besides, he's not the liberal pope, just one of the prophets. So 0 for you.

Do you mean worldwide? Or are you confused? Or just lying and hoping nobody likes to check statistics? I love checking facts and statistics, though I admit to laziness some days. Not today, though.

46 million per year...hmmm...with a population of around 300 million people, half of whom are women, that means that about 1 out of 3 women have an abortion every year! Sounds like an epidemic...if your facts were correct, which they're not. The number is 48 million since 1973. Depending on the source, the annual number of abortions is around 850,000 to 1.2 million. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Sorry, Timmy, still 0 for you.

Did you read your own source?
Feminazis...but you don't listen to Rush Crackhead? And NARAL and the ACLU now speak for all liberals? Even so, the NARAL link took a very sober, public health policy stand for abortion funding. It saves the lives of women, which should be a moral issue but that is irrelevant to the anti-choice right because the anti-choice position is an immoral one.

Still 0 for you, Timmy. But at least you're making more cogent arguments now, that's a plus. I give you an E for Effort.

I've puzzled over this and I just can't decide: either you have difficulty preparing logical thoughtforms and arranging them into comprehensible communi***ion or you're just not very intelligent. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

As I have demonstrated, you tried unsuccessfully to connect the global warming debate to abortion--if ever there was a case of apples vs. oranges this is it--and in your rant you failed numerous times to make some kind of point...I think it was "liberals are for abortion" and "want the state to pay for it." Also claimed I am "angry" and "enraged" with no basis--I've seen this tactic before, when you're out of ammo just accuse the other side of being "angry" because maybe the jury will react emotionally and not notice the gaping holes in your own argument.

What was incorrect in your statement:
1. 46 million abortions per year
2. liberals believe the state should pay for them-2 sources cited, no survey of "liberals" included
3. several statements that were just gibberish:
You need to connect your ideas, one to the next, or at least to the other ideas in your argument, for it to make sense, to be a logical argument. So when you say "...all the while millions of abortions are performed annually and believe the state should pay for them, and they call it 'choice'" you're not really being clear what you mean. "...and they call it 'choice'" is a disparaging statement, esp. with the scare quotes, but you don't elaborate why it should be disparaged. All this and misrepresented statistics, really, Timmy, you need to go back to school for a few more days.

My posts speak for themselves, for me, and though you might disagree with their content it should be plain I have a clear track record of providing a factual, logical basis for the overwhelming majority of my serious posts. I have called people names, almost everyone name-calls on this board, with few exceptions, and I have restrained myself numerous times and NOT responded in kind when I have been so impugned. I stand by my record and make no apologies for it. Speaking of name-calling...

Ha! You are a piece of work, Timmy. I couldn't have written this better myself.

Not that I owe you any explanations but, yes, I work (look at my profile, and it's ok if you have to look it up). Note most of my posts occur at night, between 8 pm and 3 am, or on weekends. My real life friends think I'm wasting my time with message boards and that I shouldn't enjoy kicking the retarded kids. I disagree.

So: Timmy 0. Better luck next time, kid.

__________________
"Until Philosophers are kings...cities will never have rest from their troubles." -Plato

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis

Hey, it looks like we have another Sebastian.

I've concluded that it just bugs the shit out of you that I've demonstrated how dumb up you leftist kooks really are.
You can't even grasp the concept of a generalization...No wonder leftists are so bloodly foolish.
You have nothing to argue against my post so you hysterically rant and rave about it being a generalization rather than actually debating the merits of my generalization, because you can't deny what I've stated. Everyone with a brain cell here knows what I stated was accurate. Either you and Sebastian are just too stupid to understand or are just angry that I stated it.

You were originally asked to cite all the fallacies, as in plural, as you originally stated, and you have come up with nothing.
Obviously, you were just lying again. Here's a clue, when you lie, try to make it less obvious.

Good Day. I'm through wasting time with you too.