Well, since I absolutely hated the three years I spent without a home I guess the former applies.

No, really. :sunny:

At which point you are more than welcome to provide a counter interpretation or cite evidence for your statement rather than an ad hominem attack.

You'll note that "...a large portion..." does not equate to "...all homeless people..."

A minor oversight on your part, I'm sure. ;)

It was self evident.
Also it certainly wasn't an ad hominen.

So define what you meant.
Or can it be simply written off as a totally meaningless statement you made where you tried to present a very strange interpretation as a fact.

It's self evident how? I presented falsifiable facts that have not been falsified and an interpretation of those facts. You can either falsify the fact or present a counter viewpoint. That's called debate. Or did you mean "it's self evident because I disagree, therefore you're wrong."

No oversight at all - I knew what you meant. I mentioned it because in my case you might just be right.

Its self evident in the first line, you presented an interpretaion and presented it as fact then did an interpretation of your interpretation.
Simple facts to establish, what was the timeline of the legislation in question.
If article A is in motion and article A passes then that is a fact
If article B is in motion and article B doesn't pass then that is a fact.
Saying someone is using article A as a backdoor to article B's failure is pure bollox and all the "impact" comes from article A not the actions following the failure of article B.
What you are presenting is an arguement from someone who is opposed to A&B but is trying to portray A as B.

Plus of course your arguement following that is also nonsense as the action isn't suddenly "enacted".

If the timelines of the legislation and the executive orders are in question, that can be presented as opposing evidence. Instead you merely chose to say "it's bollocks!" This is not debate, this is "I disagree with the points you've made, therefore you're crazy!" If you think a point I've made is "nonsense" then present your point of view or evidence as to why it is nonsense. Otherwise, you might as well just troll with "u suck, republican nazi! don't u have some old ladies to throw off cliffs?"

I had posted facts and my interpretation of them, with the hope that someone might present a counter viewpoint that I could use to test my reasoning as a check on my own personal bias, and thus, in effect, learn something and grow as a person. I also had hoped that my presentation of the facts and interpretation thereof might inspire the same self critiquing in others.

Unfortunately, it would seem that hope is futile as I am attempting to use the internet as a vehicle for that discussion.

And yes, in America an executive order is "suddenly enacted" and carries the same force as a law, which is why it is a dangerous precedent to use them to rule by fiat as a means of getting around Congress's law making authority.

Review the definition of an ad hominem attack before falsely accusing someone of making one.


Two people have now pointed out that your "facts" are in reality "interpretations." There's your critique.

All the evidence needed was supplied.

No this is "I disagree with you presenting interpretations as facts and then doing interpretations of those "facts" and claiming they have a factual basis"

No.

BTW as a simple example of how you are talking bollox again.......
The claim you made was about the changes to plant under the EPA legislation and the costs associated with those.

Here, let's learn how to debate and refute points. It's easy! I'll show you how.

Claim: The President's new executive order to the EPA to limit pollution from coal plants has harmed workers as plant owners have decided it is cheaper to decommission the plants rather than comply with new EPA regulations (regulations btw, not legislation, as legislation is passed by the legislative branch of the government, whereas regulations are issued by a regulatory agency, such as the EPA). This has resulted in layoffs, further exacerbating the unemployment problem, and placed undue stress on the electrical grid, as coal is the number one energy source in the United States.

Bad example: "That's bollocks!" This merely makes an emotional exclamation, rather than attempting to refute the point, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Good example: "That's bollocks! Most plants are able to afford the new regulations, and the implementation of them provides new jobs to workers at other plants. The plants that close down were nearing the end of their lives anyway, and the workers who worked at them will still have a job in their decommission or can work in other power plant infrastructure that doesn't use coal. Furthermore, the grid won't be stressed, as new super clean fairydust powerplants are coming online to replace the coal plants before they go down, thus giving us a surplus of energy that we can sell to Canada and even help the debt!"

Claim: The President is purple, this must mean he is an outerspace alien hellbent on destruction of the Planet Earth.

Bad example: "That's an interpretation! Not a fact!"
Good example: "Clearly anyone can see that the President is not, in fact, purple. Have you tried adjusting the color hue on your television set? I'm sure you'll find that once you have determined the President is not, in fact, purple, you'll find your fears that the president is a space alien are unwarranted. In fact, here's a picture showing the president is not in fact purple: ..."

Claim: The President is using executive orders to rule by fiat in an attempt to advance his agenda while ignoring checks and balances placed by Congress when they fail to pass legislation he wants. Example: Fact A. Fact B. Interpretation: Fact B is a direct result of Fact A.

Bad example:"You have presented interpretations as fact." "How?" "That is self evident."
Good example: "While both Fact A and Fact B are matters of public record, there is no correlation, as Fact B occurred before Fact A and is thus incapable of being the effect of cause Fact A. [However, this does not refute the interpretation that the President's implementation of a law by executive order that Congress has denied through consensus vote undermines Congress's authority as the lawmaking arm of the US Government] Furthermore, the President's executive powers have been used for many centuries to enforce the president's agenda, and thus Congress's power as a law making body has already been compromised, for better or worse. See: Andrew Jackson's infamous '...now let them enforce it...' rebuttal to the Supreme Court's ruling that it was unconstitutional for him to force the relocation of certain Ancient American tribes."

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

A condescending attitude isn't going to make people want to debate with you.

Awww, sounds like someone needs a hug. <3?

Edit: And I disagree with your statement, as your condescending attitude devoid of facts or counter arguments but full of evasion has only made me want to debate more. :>

No, that happens to be a very good word which sums up the entire point in one fell swoop with no emotions apart from those which take it so, like you have.
Another example of bollox is your "claim" ... "good example" post.

Face it stix you are just another one of those usual talking pointers who is repeating the same back door rubbish that has been doing the rounds, I fully expect a rant about ebony next.

Now *that* was a good ad hominem. Thumbs up, mate!