- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 29,135
- Reaction score
- 1,520
- Location
- US, California - federalist
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
How would you know?
Because you Only have fallacies for your Cause.
How would you know?
And tell who fills the void left in the world when we pull out of the leadership role in the world? And you think other more nefarious enemies will just leave us alone?
I think yours is a very naive view.
You're obviously not talking to me.It has to do with Faith and morals regarding bearing True witness instead of False witness to our own laws.
You don't have a clue what I have for my cause, let alone what that cause is, or whether it exists at all.Because you Only have fallacies for your Cause.
You're obviously not talking to me.
Continue your one-sided discussion then.
You don't have a clue what I have for my cause, let alone what that cause is, or whether it exists at all.
And you're capitalizing random words for some reason. Why?
You're still talking to yourself?If, and Only if, you don't believe in the subjective value of morals.
I haven't presented any cause or evidence, so how the hell can you know whether the cause is faulty and the evidence is fallacious?Does it really matter since you seem to Only have fallacies for any Cause you may have, and want to support with a good argument, instead.
What is "simple poverty"? And why is it simple? Compared to what?Why do you believe solving simple poverty would not be a promotion of the general welfare?
You're still talking to yourself?
I haven't presented any cause or evidence, so how the hell can you know whether the cause is faulty and the evidence is fallacious?
What is "simple poverty"? And why is it simple? Compared to what?
Undefined Term.Let's just assume that simple poverty
Undefined Term…no context to know what you consider to be market friendly.can be solved in a market friendly manner, for now.
False dichotomy, claiming what th e other person believes, and making an assertion of fact about a debateable concept.Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Undefined Term.
Undefined Term…no context to know what you consider to be market friendly.
False dichotomy, claiming what th e other person believes, and making an assertion of fact about a debateable concept.
Not if we want a rational discussion, we can't. Though based on you previous posts and refusal to be clear, I'm not convinced you want rational discussion.We can define it later.
I can't assume that when I don't know what you mean by simple poverty or what you would consider market friendly.We can assume, for now, that simple poverty can be solved in a market friendly manner.
True, but I need to know the terms to know what the connection between "full employment of resources" (which needs to be defined itself) and simple poverty is.No. You don't need to know th e terms to assume full employment of resources in the market for labor.
No it doesn't.The theory of demand and supply makes that assumption for you.
Since I don't know what you mean by simple poverty, so I have no idea what could be involved in solving it. And since I don't know what you consider to be the "war on poverty," I can't say which is better.Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Not if we want a rational discussion, we can't. Though based on you previous posts and refusal to be clear, I'm not convinced you want rational discussion.
I can't assume that when I don't know what you mean by simple poverty or what you would consider market friendly.
True, but I need to know the terms to know what the connection between "full employment of resources" (which needs to be defined itself) and simple poverty is.
No it doesn't.
Since I don't know what you mean by simple poverty, so I have no idea what could be involved in solving it. And since I don't know what you consider to be the "war on poverty," I can't say which is better.
How can one assume something to be true if you don't know what it is? And why can't you, or rather, REFUSE TO, define your terms?Why would it matter if we merely assume it for now and define it later?
I don't know if I believe that or not.Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Why not?I don't know if I believe that or not.
Because, for the fourth time now, nobody knows what you mean by simple poverty, nor what you consider to be the war on poverty.Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty, hypothetically, would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation.
Why not?
Because, for the fourth time now, nobody knows what you mean by simple poverty, nor what you consider to be the war on poverty.
How can one say if X is better or worse than Y without knowing what X or Y are?
There is no simple poverty in this country. Simple poverty was solved long, long ago.
I was talking about simple poverty, which again has not been an issue for some time.You may need to read up on issue. Only absolute poverty has been solved for, mostly, due to Socialism bailing out Capitalism like usual. So, we are usually referring to relative poverty when discussing poverty in the US.
I was talking about simple poverty, which again has not been an issue for some time.
If by "simplification of public policies" you mean reducing or eliminating much of the regulatory perplexity that exists in this country, then carry on.Solving simple poverty in more developed economies usually involves simplification of public policies and upgrades in infrastructure.
Let's assume we can end our War on Poverty by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner and lower our Tax burden as a result.