Battle of Wisconsin

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would like to see a citation for this. "ever" and "never" are pretty extreme terms. How about something a little more realistic like "seldom"?

How do you propose I cite something that doesn't happen?

Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How do you propose I cite something that doesn't happen?

Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed?

U.S. Railroad Administration, Public Works Administration, OFHEO, Bureau of Mines

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

U.S. Railroad Administration, Public Works Administration, OFHEO, Bureau of Mines

Good points. So why does public spending outpace inflation dramatically?

Oh yeah, those programs become something else.

But let's examine:

US Railroad Administration: Created for a war emergency, and had a clear expiration date. Clearly out of the context as I CLEARLY meant regarding examination and repealing of programs.

Public Works Administration: A good example, but yet again, why when I'm clearly referring to modern government spending, must you go back to pre WWII in order to try to make a point (which is contextually irrelevant to begin with)?

OFHEO: Combined with another program - ergo, not repealed.

Mines: Actually your best example here. Yet, it is miniscule in relation to government programs.

Okay, fine - perhaps "seldom" is a more accurate term - in the same way that .000000000001 of a dollar is actually NOT zero dollars. But, in the process of making that point, you made another - only a liberal could miss or distort a concept so much as to make it unrecognizable despite its validity.

"Never" vs. "Almost Never". Glad to see our country's problems reduced to such a semantic triviality.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, fine - perhaps "seldom" is a more accurate term - in the same way that .000000000001 of a dollar is actually NOT zero dollars. But, in the process of making that point, you made another - only a liberal could miss or distort a concept so much as to make it unrecognizable despite its validity.

"Never" vs. "Almost Never". Glad to see our country's problems reduced to such a semantic triviality.

You said "Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed". I gave you some. Now you want to add qualifiers and reasons why the ones I listed aren't good enough examples. That's called "moving the goalposts" and it's an intellectually dishonest way of having a debate. It's childish. If you're not going to even consider the possibility that your premise could be wrong, then just don't even debate at all. It wastes everyone's time.

But thanks for the petty "hurr hurr libruls always do that" attack anyways. Typical closed minded conservative crap. See, I can do it too!

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You said "Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed". I gave you some. Now you want to add qualifiers and reasons why the ones I listed aren't good enough examples. That's called "moving the goalposts" and it's an intellectually dishonest way of having a debate. It's childish. If you're not going to even consider the possibility that your premise could be wrong, then just don't even debate at all. It wastes everyone's time.

But thanks for the petty "hurr hurr libruls always do that" attack anyways. Typical closed minded conservative crap. See, I can do it too!

You have to admit that list is not only very short the items on it are all very old Mookie.

If one had to sum it up it looks like the Feds once dabbled with closing programs but decided it was a bad habit to get into and stopped doing it some time ago.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

You have to admit that list is not only very short the items on it are all very old Mookie.

A quick Googling. I wasn't going to write a research paper or come up with an exhaustive list. His statement was that they NEVER expire. Thus even one example would prove his assertion false. If he wanted recent programs, or programs of a certain size, he could have qualified his statement in the beginning. There's more examples, and more recent ones as well.

If one had to sum it up it looks like the Feds once dabbled with closing programs but decided it was a bad habit to get into and stopped doing it some time ago.

Probably true enough. But that's not what Aramike said.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You said "Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed". I gave you some. Now you want to add qualifiers and reasons why the ones I listed aren't good enough examples. That's called "moving the goalposts" and it's an intellectually dishonest way of having a debate. It's childish. If you're not going to even consider the possibility that your premise could be wrong, then just don't even debate at all. It wastes everyone's time.

But thanks for the petty "hurr hurr libruls always do that" attack anyways. Typical closed minded conservative crap. See, I can do it too!

Childish is avoiding the obvious point of the debate in favor of "gotcha" rebuttals that don't actually serve to counter the actual point being made. Even moreso considering that my entire point was about modern government in the first place, as evidenced by the PRIOR PARAGRAPH which cited the Great Lakes commissions.

To wit, however:

"Oh NO, he said NEVER!"

"Wait - he's wrong because it's really rare!"

"We got him now!"

Mookie - that's childish.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Childish is avoiding the obvious point of the debate in favor of "gotcha" rebuttals that don't actually serve to counter the actual point being made.

"Oh NO, he said NEVER!"

"Wait - he's wrong because it's really rare!"

"We got him now!"

Mookie - that's childish.

No it's not. If your argument is based around that premise and that premise is proved false, so goes your argument. But if you're itching to get into a "nu-uh you are!" kind of thing, I'd recommend the local playground.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No it's not. If your argument is based around that premise and that premise is proved false, so goes your argument. But if you're itching to get into a "nu-uh you are!" kind of thing, I'd recommend the local playground.

Ironic, but alas -

My argument wasn't BASED upon that premise. It was based upon the premise that such a statement would IMPLY. Now, technically speaking, even if there are a miniscule amount of programs cut (which would make that statement wrong), how does that invalidate the premise that the government needs to examine and cut redundant programs?

Oh wait - that's right: you're more interested in that playground crap you're ironically railing about than the actual discussion at hand. Gotcha.

Word of the Day for Mookie:

hy·per·bo·le

–noun Rhetoric . 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Ironic, but alas -

My argument wasn't BASED upon that premise. It was based upon the premise that such a statement would IMPLY. Now, technically speaking, even if there are a miniscule amount of programs cut (which would make that statement wrong), how does that invalidate the premise that the government needs to examine and cut redundant programs?

Adding dubious inferences weakens an argument. Strive for accuracy and you'll make a stronger point.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Adding dubious inferences weakens an argument. Strive for accuracy and you'll make a stronger point.

Actually I think my hyperbole helped, as you made my point even stronger via having to dig into the annals of pre-WWII history in odd attempt to avoid the point itself but rather to address the innaccuracy of a SLIGHT exaggeration.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Actually I think my hyperbole helped, as you made my point even stronger via having to dig into the annals of pre-WWII history in odd attempt to avoid the point itself but rather to address the innaccuracy of a SLIGHT exaggeration.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Oh, so now my insomnia (or lack thereof) is in question? (Sarcasm - I feel as though I must point that out or else risk two paragraphs of backlash.)

Mookie, why are you even in this discussion? You are not debating the Wisconsin budget issue. You are not even debating the point regarding government spending. Rather, you are intent upon picking apart a tiny bit of hyperbole in support of points regarding the above issues.

So far, you have attempted to label such points as "childish" and "school yard". Yet, it is YOU (yes YOU) who has not ONE SINGLE TIME attempted to address the actual topic in hand. Instead, you have tried to discredit the obvious points being made via innane attempts at obfuscation.

MAy I suggest your future attempts at debate involve more focused arguments on the subject matter than whether or not someone made a hyperbolic statement? Otherwise it seems as though you're more interested in attacking the character of who is making the argument rather than the argument itself. And while that may work for those who are by default on your side, in the end to the rest of us it makes you look at best ill-equipped to make your case; at worst, unable.

So its a case of someone making a statement, sticking up for that staement when challenged, claiming that as its true it can't be shown otherwise.....ooops I didn't really mean it, that doesn't count as its about what I wrote not what I wrote, absolutes are not really definate, just because it isn't true it doesn't mean it isn't true.......stick to the topic not the topic, what I wrote in the topic isn't part of the topic when it goes wrong, you are too thick to join in the topic so don't respond to what I wrote.

I suppose it could be a prime example of CAPS LOCK strikes again, not that such a thing would EVER happen and if it did it was NEVER really written.

As for the topic in so far as what was written in the topic, I did hear a rumour of a government agency which was set up to modernise the system of measurements in the US, apparently after it worked for a while and spent some money before it was evaluated and abolished, which is quite different from those which are merged or replaced after evaluation which of coures never ever happens as they don't ever evaluate programs let alone change them.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So its a case of someone making a statement, sticking up for that staement when challenged, claiming that as its true it can't be shown otherwise.....ooops I didn't really mean it, that doesn't count as its about what I wrote not what I wrote, absolutes are not really definate, just because it isn't true it doesn't mean it isn't true.......stick to the topic not the topic, what I wrote in the topic isn't part of the topic when it goes wrong, you are too thick to join in the topic so don't respond to what I wrote.

Nailed it. It's a public message board. Your statements will be challenged by any and all comers. If you don't like it or don't want to defend it, don't post it.