You are being just as haughty, imprecise, selective, and judgmental as the people you criticize. Seems like a fairly common and broadly-practiced tactic on a political debate forum..
If by that you mean to say that paragraph 2 is my opinion, I absolutely agree. Also, I don't claim credit for originality. Lots of people have this opinion about progressives. However, I did write it with consideration of standard definitions for the words I chose. That allowed you to correctly perceive the sarcasm that I used to highlight my accusation of arrogance. Then you could state your opinion that I was haughty, imprecise, selective, and judgmental. I’m confident that I understand what you were saying about me. We were able to communicate. That’s not possible if I have to wonder what you mean by haughty. Or if you call me ignorant and we argue about it for 5 pages only to discover that you really meant I was non-analytic. A foolish waste of time that's avoidable. With respect to your opinion of me as haughty (I’m really not), imprecise (sometimes- especially if I feel the effort to achieve precision is not value added to the discussion), selective (minor crime guilty) and judgmental (felony guilty).
I join you in the advocacy of proper definitions, I cite them all of the time because many terms have multiple definitions and many people understand them imperfectly. I only argued with your comment that lack of critical thinking is unrelated to ignorance ("not even close"). I think there is a relationship and explained why. Lack of critical thinking is willful ignorance. OK. Oh, I'm a very good judge of haughty . . .
At least you admit that we are making money during the rule of this anti-free market tyrant. We are not at war with Islam. You have no evidence that we are except for your own opinion and that of other conservatives like you. This is a myth and the worst kind of myth intended to rile Christians in this country into believing this is some kind of Holy War that we are dutifully bound to fight as followers of a peaceful jewish carpenter. I am glad to hear you have a life outside of this forum....it's pretty evident the ones who do not.
She is still very ignorant by that definition so thanks for further clarifying my point. Do you think that she arrives opinions like "kill'em all" because of her keen intellect and by collecting all relevant data? Of course not. I actually am very aware of Websters definition of the word ignorance and I apologize for taking it a step further so that it appears that I do not. That said, you basically did nothing at all to defend anything she espouses. Instead your defense of her positions is that I did not define the term correctly. It really is actually very telling of your own position. You have nothing of substance to offer that might show how I was incorrect and your response is indicative of that.
What else do you expect when you guys can't accept the fact that we are experiencing Climate Change or that cold weather does not refute said Climate Change but whole heartedly believe that tax cuts can actually lead to increased revenue over the long term or that voter fraud is so rampant that it is compromising the integrity of elections? These are your words, not mine. I have many conservative friends whom I have never considered to be any of the things you've listed. That said, the positions they espouse leave at least enough room to make people wonder. It's really not. But because you have had no other means of defending TigerChick46 you have resorted to semantics. Frankly it reminds me of everytime we have a big snow storm conservatives like to find a microphone to show everyone that the snow is evidence that Climate Change is a hoax, but they are extremely short on facts or evidence when it comes time to actually debate the issue.
Well it is proven tax cuts CAN in fact lead to increased revenues, though it is not black and white as you described. The right policies and work environment have to be able to support it. Just like raising the tax rate can have multiple effects. Surely you know this. Or every time it is hot liberals say "SEE, the world is burning". All the while using petroleum products.
There is a time and a place for both economic models in our economy. When the economy is humming along, I would agree with you that lowering federal taxes can be a further stimulant to the economy. That said, during times of greater economic hardship raising taxes on the wealthy is a good way to increase the revenue that is no longer being generated by the middle class and poor. The problem is that when the economy turns bad the Republicans want to double down and lower taxes again. At that point, when the economy is already hurting, lowering federal revenue will only make it worse. By that same token, a huge tax increase during a time of prosperity can also blunt the economy's momentum. The difference in is the Science and is not political. 99% of scientist who study climate change agree that it is happening and that humans are playing some part in it.....to what extent is a fair question and one that scientist are feverishly trying to find the answer to. My problem with Republicans, or anyone for that matter who thinks Climate Change is a hoax, is that they are looking to that other 1% of scientists who disagree and exclaiming, "These guys must be onto something!" Should we abandon all petroleum products immediately in favor of green energy? No, that would be financially inconceivable. However, moving toward better standards and exploring other means of powering our homes and vehicles is a good idea. Accepting that Climate Change is real is the first step toward doing that.
