Daschle: Delinquent Personal Taxes [MERGED]

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

Daschle has proven he does not share a vision of responsibility for himself and his place in the system. Maybe he has a vision of responsibility for everybody else but so what.

Quite.

He demonstrated that he does not believe that humans own themselves -- thus he is not fit to be in government at all, not even so high as city council.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

What do you mean go back to?

THIS President was back to business as usual on Day 1.

Nick, would it be too much for you to read in context?

I was responding to a claim that boiled down to "But he's doing better".
My point was that it doesn't matter how much better he's doing, if he isn't even following his own standards, because his failure will be the precedent others will stand on.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

Nick, would it be too much for you to read in context?

I read and responded to it in context.

Your failure to recognize that notwithstanding.

I was responding to a claim that boiled down to "But he's doing better".
My point was that it doesn't matter how much better he's doing, if he isn't even following his own standards, because his failure will be the precedent others will stand on.

Yes I know.

You said it doesn't matter how much better he's doing.

I said he isn't doing better.

On Day 1 he signed an EO barring lobbyists from working in the Administration, and on Day 1 he broke that and appointed lobbyists to work in his administration. That's not better.

He's nominated three people to high ranking positions who are ethically stained. His administration was not transparent (as he's promised they will be) about it when they found out and then stood behind all three of them. He, personally, stood by two of them, and one has been confirmed. That's not better.

He's also, three weeks in, putting together a monumental piece of legislation full of pork and programs unrelated to economic stimulation that will, therefore, fall far short of achieving what a crisis demands. He promised to get rid of special interest and yet his economic stimulus bill is bloated with special interest. That's not better.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

I read and responded to it in context.

Your failure to recognize that notwithstanding.

Nope - and you prove it right here:

You said it doesn't matter how much better he's doing.

I said he isn't doing better.

The argument I responded to was based on him doing better -- which, in the terms it was stated, he is.

That was the context of my post.

If you wanted to disagree with the premise, that would have been a response to the earlier post.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

He's also, three weeks in, putting together a monumental piece of legislation full of pork and programs unrelated to economic stimulation that will, therefore, fall far short of achieving what a crisis demands. He promised to get rid of special interest and yet his economic stimulus bill is bloated with special interest. That's not better.

That, BTW, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is a fallacy sometimes known as "muddying the waters".

 

[youngnihilist]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964904G0&show_article=1


Let's just say if Bush had nominated 3 tax cheats, 1 shady business guy, and a guy who pardoned terrorists against the advice of the US gov... well, the media would have a fucking field day.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

Nope - and you prove it right here:



The argument I responded to was based on him doing better -- which, in the terms it was stated, he is.

No he is not doing better.

Making and breaking new rules, no matter how high the new standard, is not better. Merely making a rule is not better; making and adhering to it is.

That was the context of my post.

Yes I know, and within that context I disagreed with what you said.

If you wanted to disagree with the premise, that would have been a response to the earlier post.

I did that as well; the post, afterall, was addressed to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nick, I'm glad you were never my debate partner -- we would have been humiliated every time, the way you argue.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

That, BTW, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is a fallacy sometimes known as "muddying the waters".

It's fully relevant.

The topic is "standard of ethics." One of the things Obama promised, in terms of raising ethical standards, was to deal with the problem of special interest. And yet he's bloated the most important piece of legislation in years with special interest pork and programs.

Your newfound obsession with the word "fallacy" and the notion that one can shoot down any point or argument by shrugging it off as fallacy is a bad habit that novice debaters sometimes fall into when they learn about fallacies. It's useful to know about fallacies but it's crippling to become dependent on raising your hand to announce them wherever you think you see them because they're the kind of thing one tends to "see" when it isn't really there.

 

[NickCole]

Nick, I'm glad you were never my debate partner -- we would have been humiliated every time, the way you argue.

These personal attacks of yours are off topic and gratuitous.

Did your debate partners feel humiliated when you got called on that? Or did the presence of a moderator keep you in check?

In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a Debate. It's an Internet discussion forum. I'm not going to point out in formal terms when a premise is flawed or something you've written is a fallacy. If you want to play around that way, that's up to you (although, you might have an ounce of credibility doing so if you were consistent rather than pulling it out of your ass when it conveniences you and not bothering with debate rules when you feel like it). I'm engaging in informal discussion about current events, not a Debate.

 

[NickCole]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964904G0&show_article=1


Let's just say if Bush had nominated 3 tax cheats, 1 shady business guy, and a guy who pardoned terrorists against the advice of the US gov... well, the media would have a fucking field day.

And these hypocrites who're defending Obama would have gone ballistic.

 

[NickCole]

Hm, guesswork from your fantasies again, huh?

Nope. Remembering what it was like and who criticized Bush for what when he slithered into the White House after Bush v Gore.

 

[NickCole]

Nope, sounds like the same load of fantasy you criticized Shafted over here: http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4771233&postcount=32

I don't doubt it sounds the same to you but you're wrong.


Bush was President and I saw the way Obama supporters reacted to what he did and didn't do.

Mine was informed conclusion.


Hillary Clinton has never been President and Shafted doesn't know what she'd have done or what her adminstration would have been like.

Shafted's was fantasy made up in his own mind.

 

[NickCole]

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Tuesday abruptly abandoned his nomination fight for Tom Daschle and a second major appointee who failed to pay all their taxes, telling NBC News: "I screwed up."

"I’ve got to own up to my mistake. Ultimately, it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules — you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said on NBC’s "Nightly News with Brian Williams."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/

Typical Obama bullshit.

A seducer's play for sympathy, which he will get from the press.

First of all, from all accounts, Daschle was the one who decided to resign, Obama did not ask him to. So characterizing it as Obama "abruptly abandoned his nomination fight for Tom Daschle" may be true but is also misleading. It implies Obama, because of the ethics of the situation he describes in the second paragraph, took action in abandoning his fight for Daschle's nomination rather than it being Obama's reaction to Daschle's decision to withdraw.

And saying "I screwed up" is the same as "nobody's perfect," supposed to dismiss accountability for any wrongdoing. Not good enough. If what he said in the second paragraph were true, what about Timothy Geithner? If there aren't two sets of rules, Obama would ask Geithner to resign.

More Just Words from Obama.

 

[NickCole]

There were no "Obama supporters" at that time.

There were Obama supporters when Bush was President.

Whether it was when Bush was first elected or the last year is all the same. Bush was President when Obama supporters voiced their criticism of him. It's reality: something that really happened. During the recent campaign opinions about what President Bush did throughout his presidency concerning events at least as far back as 9/11 were expressed repeatedly by Obama supporters. I know how Obama supporters reacted to what President Bush said and did; thus mine was informed conclusion.

Shafted can't know, as he claimed, that a President Hillary Clinton would have done what Obama has as President because she's never been President. It's just a fantasy he's made up about something that never happened.

But recognizing the distinction between fantasy and reality has always been a problem for many Obama supporters. "Truthiness."

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

It's fully relevant.

The topic is "standard of ethics." One of the things Obama promised, in terms of raising ethical standards, was to deal with the problem of special interest. And yet he's bloated the most important piece of legislation in years with special interest pork and programs.

Your newfound obsession with the word "fallacy" and the notion that one can shoot down any point or argument by shrugging it off as fallacy is a bad habit that novice debaters sometimes fall into when they learn about fallacies. It's useful to know about fallacies but it's crippling to become dependent on raising your hand to announce them wherever you think you see them because they're the kind of thing one tends to "see" when it isn't really there.

Funny, but on my screen it says the topic is "Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet". The topic is thus ethics WRT selecting cabinet members.

"Newfound obsession"? Where the frak have you been? I've been calling people on fallacies since I've been on JUB. It's just that you use them so frequently of late.

ICO7 has been providing links to validate calling you on your fallacies -- you ignore them. So now your defense is essentially "I can use fallacies and it's okay because it's immature of you to call me on them."

 

[Kulindahr]

These personal attacks of yours are off topic and gratuitous.

Did your debate partners feel humiliated when you got called on that? Or did the presence of a moderator keep you in check?

In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a Debate. It's an Internet discussion forum. I'm not going to point out in formal terms when a premise is flawed or something you've written is a fallacy. If you want to play around that way, that's up to you (although, you might have an ounce of credibility doing so if you were consistent rather than pulling it out of your ass when it conveniences you and not bothering with debate rules when you feel like it). I'm engaging in informal discussion about current events, not a Debate.

It wasn't a personal attack, it was a summary observation of the way you weave and dodge:

You use fallacious arguments and toss off indirect insults as your "defense".
You take things out of context and try to bail yourself out by contorted excuses.
You adjust the subject at hand so it will fit what you want to say.

And you display your failures again here: I didn't say this was a debate. But that it's "an Internet discussion forum" isn't a license to engage in sloppy reasoning -- like your continued ad hominems...

which are in fact personal attacks -- and you did it again in this post.

 

[NickCole]

It wasn't a personal attack, it was a summary observation of the way you weave and dodge:

It was a personal attack.

Repeating nonsense ad nauseum and tag-teaming with ICO7 doesn't make it true.

And ICO7's "examples" are as ridiculous as his contention that a reference to real opposition reaction to the real President Bush is the same as anyone claiming to know what a never-existed President Hillary Clinton would do.

Just silly in the extreme.

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: Obama chooses another tax cheat for cabinet

TWhat's wrong with this picture?

The Republicans are the ones who foam at the most about paying taxes, but we have one here bitchin' cuz somebody else didn't pay his tax....

Perhaps you need to go back to school and revisit Reading Comprehension 101.

Whether he paid his taxes or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If he were an ordinary citizen - Joe Sixpack from Center City, for example - it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[HenryReardon]

true.

And ICO7's "examples" are as ridiculous as his contention that a reference to real opposition reaction to the real President Bush is the same as anyone claiming to know what a never-existed President Hillary Clinton would do.

Just silly in the extreme.

Of course, but how can you take anyone seriously when their avatar is of a stick figure dousing itself with gasoline and striking a match?