TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

[Heywood]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

now he is siting wikipedia bowhahahaha

you own a car that gets 19 city mpg.... dont argue saving the planet, because ur not doing ur part

*citing

Dude.... Didn't I just define ad hominem for you? I even posted a link to a very simple and easy to understand web page that breaks it down for you (Wikipedia! Written in layman's terms!). Heck I even conveniently quoted a very similar example from that page so you wouldn't even have to click the link to get a general grasp of what a logical fallacy is. Maybe you were insulted that I cited wikipedia assuming you didn't know what ad hominem was but it's obvious now that you still don't know, so really there was no way of breaking it to you without insult.

That said, there's no point in arguing with someone who outright refuses to be educated (you had your chance to prove your point, but you chose to laugh at me rather than read and learn something).

Ugggh I knew I shouldn't have necro'd this thread.

[venom3300]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

*citing

Dude.... Didn't I just define ad hominem for you? I even posted a link to a very simple and easy to understand web page that breaks it down for you (Wikipedia! Written in layman's terms!). Heck I even conveniently quoted a very similar example from that page so you wouldn't even have to click the link to get a general grasp of what a logical fallacy is. Maybe you were insulted that I cited wikipedia assuming you didn't know what ad hominem was but it's obvious now that you still don't know, so really there was no way of breaking it to you without insult.

That said, there's no point in arguing with someone who outright refuses to be educated (you had your chance to prove your point, but you chose to laugh at me rather than read and learn something).

Ugggh I knew I shouldn't have necro'd this thread.

if u read the thread, you have seen my point. but to make it simple for u, the govt has no business in the private sector, period. and thats as far back into that as i am going.

i was laughing because wiki is edited by anyone and you cited it as if it were some profound knowledge. i knew what you were talking about and honestly dont care. i am not sure where you got off that i was insulted?

[Heywood]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

i was laughing because wiki is edited by anyone and you cited it as if it were some profound knowledge. i knew what you were talking about and honestly dont care. i am not sure where you got off that i was insulted?

Let's try this again...

now he is siting wikipedia bowhahahaha

I cited wikipedia because you clearly don't know what ad hominem is. How do I know you don't know what it means? Because you said

you own a car that gets 19 city mpg.... dont argue saving the planet, because ur not doing ur part

...which is a logical fallacy. Me doing my part has nothing to do with my argument. Your argument is that because I drive a firebird then the government shouldn't interfere with what cars we drive. This is EXACTLY like the example I so conveniently quoted for you

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

This is an example of an ad hominem agrument. Yes, it is profound knowledge since you clearly don't know it.

As far as wikipedia being edited by anyone, I'll only ask you this: Do you mention this because you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of ad hominem or because you don't think your argument was ad hominem?

[venom3300]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

Let's try this again...



I cited wikipedia because you clearly don't know what ad hominem is. How do I know you don't know what it means? Because you said

...which is a logical fallacy. Me doing my part has nothing to do with my argument. Your argument is that because I drive a firebird then the government shouldn't interfere with what cars we drive. This is EXACTLY like the example I so conveniently quoted for you


This is an example of an ad hominem agrument. Yes, it is profound knowledge since you clearly don't know it.

As far as wikipedia being edited by anyone, I'll only ask you this: Do you mention this because you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of ad hominem or because you don't think your argument was ad hominem?

i find this hilarious.... u didnt get that i was making fun of you bringing up what an ad hominem is. i was well aware that what i said was one, thats WHY i said it.... just to be smart and joke around. i am sorry you dont understand sarcasm.

in this case i was using sarcasm for irony. here is the wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

o look me citing that wiki link is another great example of sarcasm :rolleyes:

i brought think up about wiki up and laughed about it because u cited it like its a credible source. but yes it does have the right definition.

[Mogobs30th]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

The government getting involved in private sector business is one of the last things the founders would have ever wanted, if you read the writings of the founders they wanted to ensure that the government stayed out of private lives and business. Because they saw how that leads to tyranny example back then was the link between England and the East Indian trading Company.

So gov't is restricted at interfering with private business and citizens, but what is there to protect the citizen against private business?? And if you don't think private business needs restriction, I can easily pull up 100+ years of labor issues. I personally would rather have a government I can vote in and out the people rather than a corporation that I have absolutely no control over. If you think private business and corporations have the moral aptitude in governing their own affairs, Im going to laugh my *** off.

[Mogobs30th]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

in this case i was using sarcasm for irony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Funny thing about written word, its hard to dictate emotion effectively, like sarcasm.

[venom3300]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

Funny thing about written word, its hard to dictate emotion effectively, like sarcasm.

fair enough

[KJZ28]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

So gov't is restricted at interfering with private business and citizens, but what is there to protect the citizen against private business?? And if you don't think private business needs restriction, I can easily pull up 100+ years of labor issues. I personally would rather have a government I can vote in and out the people rather than a corporation that I have absolutely no control over. If you think private business and corporations have the moral aptitude in governing their own affairs, Im going to laugh my *** off.

What do you think labor Unions were created for? To combat the horrible working conditions and slowly but surely they were changing for the better. When food was rancid The Jungle was written to educate the people, so people boycotted the meat companies. Through education of the public changes can be made in the private sector by many forms, including boycotts, Unions, etc. There is many cases that these work, but the only ones that get glorified are ones that delt with the government intervening.
The government goes first into private business, next private lives. After people became comfortable with the government breaking up companies, regulating things, then it wasn't far fetched with the government telling you what to do in you life, like to wear a seat-belt in YOUR car.(If I want to die that's my prerogative) Then smoking, then what you do with your child, then this then that....eventually it just leads down to big brother telling you what to do. Like on a train platform you hear a recorded voice to watch for the gap, if you cant do that on your own you deserve to fall into the gap.
Liberty, freedom, and property come at a high stake, and one must educate themselves, not have the government tell them what to do, if a company makes a bad product don't tell the government to stop it, just don't buy it!!!
The government gets its power from the consent of the governed not the other way around, and I feel freedom and liberties are more important than living in a bubble the government wants us to live in.

[Mogobs30th]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

What do you think labor Unions were created for? To combat the horrible working conditions and slowly but surely they were changing for the better. When food was rancid The Jungle was written to educate the people, so people boycotted the meat companies. Through education of the public changes can be made in the private sector by many forms, including boycotts, Unions, etc. There is many cases that these work, but the only ones that get glorified are ones that delt with the government intervening.

Not every company has a union, and most companies that have employees that want to form a collective bargaining agreement in larger corporations are fired. Wal-Mart is notorious for that. They even get a whiff of someone wanting to organize and they will fire people left and right. And its difficult to boycott a store that critically controls the local market. Its also difficult to form a union when your employer will fire you with little or no consequence to their actions.

The government goes first into private business, next private lives.

Ive been able to do everything I wanted to ever do within my monetary power without intervention of government, short of strangling some people. All this is common propaganda for paranoia.

After people became comfortable with the government breaking up companies, regulating things, then it wasn't far fetched with the government telling you what to do in you life, like to wear a seat-belt in YOUR car.(If I want to die that's my prerogative)

Awesome, so when you fly thru the windshield of your car, and the fire department has to come out and use its engine to spray your carcass off the street, I can pay for the extra time, manpower, and equipment the fire dept has to use with my tax dollars, all because you want to do whatever you want to do. Its irresponsible and ignorant.

Then smoking, then what you do with your child, then this then that....eventually it just leads down to big brother telling you what to do.

Again, I have never had anyone tell me what I can and can't do, not even my own parents. I do what I want, but I do the morally responsible thing as well. If you ever see "Big Brother", tell him I have a case of beer in the fridge, we can discuss crap while we get ****faced.

Like on a train platform you hear a recorded voice to watch for the gap, if you cant do that on your own you deserve to fall into the gap.

Proof of human de-evolution.

Liberty, freedom, and property come at a high stake, and one must educate themselves, not have the government tell them what to do, if a company makes a bad product don't tell the government to stop it, just don't buy it!!!

So when some imaginary company paints its toys with lead paint and sends them over to the US, without word to anyone of the dangers, its ok, because the government is better off not having a panel to test said toys for dangers. When a few kids come up sick or dead from lead poisoning, its still ok because then you can boycott those toys, although the boycott comes too late for the unaware kids and their parents, because the PRIVATE company that made the toys didn't say anything about the safety of them. WAIT, this wasn't imaginary, THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Deaths can be avoided, but it doesn't matter to you because you're not willing to trade a choice (whatever that may be) for common sense.

Backwards comments so far. Wreaks of Beck, but you fail.

[T-Mill]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

once again mogobs you're confusing what most people want in a free market with what you consider a free market... most people who want "free" markets don't want a market with no regulation at all, the want a market "free" of coersion... and maybe KJz28 feels differently than I do about that but i'm still going to make the point...

I don't have a problem with gov't telling me I have to wear my seatbelt, but your reasoning is ironic seeing how whenever anyone else complains of a waste of tax dollars you call them greedy neocons... I don't have a problem with the gov't telling us to wear seatbelts because it protects me by having the other driver wear a seatbelt. Consider this scenario: I run a stop sign bc I simply didn't see it and a car hits me... not a terrible collision, but since the other driver wasn't wearing his seat belt, he hits the windshield and dies so should I get charged with vehicular manslaughter considering if he had been wearing his seatbelt he may have been fine...

and as far as the smoking ban, I have no problem with that either... I like to enjoy a cigarette while I'm at a bar or something, but I have no problem going outside... again I don't have a problem with the public smoking indoors ban because it protects other people's rights... when I was younger my sister had terrible asthma and if we were in a restaurant and someone was smoking her chest would get tight, no matter how far away they were... But this ban should only go so far imo, it shouldn't be regulated outdoors, in your own home, vehicle etc...

Where I have a problem with regulation is telling people that I have to do something. This is coersion. Telling me that I have to buy health insurance. First off, the federal government doesn't have this authority. And second, it's simply not right. Since when does someone else's existence become my burden? I'm all for the moral obligation to help your fellow man, but why should that be a legal obligation? And even if it were to be a legal obligation, why does it have to be at a federal level? The states actually have the constitutional authority to impose such laws on it's citizens, the fed does not.

And to the point that I think KJ was trying to make, Big Brother is definitely present and gaining power. People in the Obama administration want to monitor literally everything we do. What kind of light bulbs we use, what our thermostat is set at, how many times we flush the toilet, what kind of mileage our cars get, and there are some in the Obama camp who want to regulate how many children we can have and even influence their sexual orientation.

This has been building for a long time, so don't think I'm only blaming Obama...

Something else to consider is, so many people want to give Obama all of this power over our lives but they fail to realize that the power given to him will be passed on to the next person to hold the office... Which is why I opposed the patriot act. I completely agreed with it's need in theory, and I believe that Bush used it in the way that it was designed to be used, but once he was gone, that power doesn't just go away... I'm not accusing anyone of abusing that power, but it is definitely there to be abused.

Personal Liberty comes with personal responsibility and we are slowly losing both

[T-Mill]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

Free-markets=free from coersion

I agree that there should be a ban on lead being used in toys, that is not coersion... if the gov't then said you have to use organic materials to make your toys... that's coersion

[KJZ28]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

And to the point that I think KJ was trying to make, Big Brother is definitely present and gaining power. People in the Obama administration want to monitor literally everything we do. What kind of light bulbs we use, what our thermostat is set at, how many times we flush the toilet, what kind of mileage our cars get, and there are some in the Obama camp who want to regulate how many children we can have and even influence their sexual orientation.



Personal Liberty comes with personal responsibility and we are slowly losing both

Exactly. See my problem is you have to stop them some where, but once you let them in its like cancer and gets stuck and spreads. I just feel you need to put the wall up before they get the foot in the door.

If a Company fires you because you want to join a Union...WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO WORK THERE!!! Seriously if a company is treating you bad work somewhere else. You shouldn't say "this company wont hire me, so Gov;t is going to make you hire me: That is just asking for a terrible working environment.

[T-Mill]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

agreed... If Wal-mart wants to treat it's employees terribly, then quit... boycott, picket etc... but gov't doesn't need to intervene... and if they do start forcing them to allow unions in or forces them to increase pay, benefits, etc... I hope Wal-mart just closes its doors...

Yuengling did that a few years ago when it's employees threatened to unionize... The owners didn't want to run a unionized company, simple as that, so when the employees said they were going to unionize, the owners simply said, You unionize and you're all out of jobs... take your pick. And not a single person quit as a result, because as it turns out they all had pretty good jobs after all with pretty good compensation

[Mogobs30th]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

Exactly. See my problem is you have to stop them some where, but once you let them in its like cancer and gets stuck and spreads. I just feel you need to put the wall up before they get the foot in the door.

If a Company fires you because you want to join a Union...WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO WORK THERE!!! Seriously if a company is treating you bad work somewhere else. You shouldn't say "this company wont hire me, so Gov;t is going to make you hire me: That is just asking for a terrible working environment.

I don't think you quite grasp what Im saying. There are some corporations that have their grip so tight on a local market that alot of people have no choice but to take whats handed to them, or up and move away.

[Heywood]

Re: TERRIBLE! cash for clunker. (remembering how stupid it was) video. (must) watch

Where I have a problem with regulation is telling people that I have to do something. This is coersion. Telling me that I have to buy health insurance. First off, the federal government doesn't have this authority. And second, it's simply not right. Since when does someone else's existence become my burden? I'm all for the moral obligation to help your fellow man, but why should that be a legal obligation? And even if it were to be a legal obligation, why does it have to be at a federal level? The states actually have the constitutional authority to impose such laws on it's citizens, the fed does not.

What I find amazing is that people treat health care like it's the first step this country has made toward socialism. I bolded part of your quote and I'll reply to just that question with some questions of my own:
Why should my taxes pay for public schools if I'm never going to have children? (Since when did someone else's will to educate their kids become my burden?)
Why should my taxes pay for the local fire department if my house is never going to catch fire? (Since when did someone else playing with matches become my burden?)
Why should my taxes pay for the US Postal Service if I only use FedEx? (Since when did someone else's will to mail a letter become my burden?)
Why should my taxes pay for railways, airports, subways and roadways if I never intend to travel by train/plane/metro/car? (Since when did someone else's laziness become my burden?)

Oh, I saved the BEST one for last:
Why should my taxes pay for a war that I don't agree with? (Since when did someone else's death to terrorists on 9/11 become my burden?)

And second, it's simply not right.

I think I just proved that it's not as simple as you think it is.

And to the point that I think KJ was trying to make, Big Brother is definitely present and gaining power. People in the Obama administration want to monitor literally everything we do. What kind of light bulbs we use, what our thermostat is set at, how many times we flush the toilet, what kind of mileage our cars get, and there are some in the Obama camp who want to regulate how many children we can have and even influence their sexual orientation.

This has been building for a long time, so don't think I'm only blaming Obama...

Something else to consider is, so many people want to give Obama all of this power over our lives but they fail to realize that the power given to him will be passed on to the next person to hold the office... Which is why I opposed the patriot act. I completely agreed with it's need in theory, and I believe that Bush used it in the way that it was designed to be used, but once he was gone, that power doesn't just go away... I'm not accusing anyone of abusing that power, but it is definitely there to be abused.

Personal Liberty comes with personal responsibility and we are slowly losing both

Read only what I bolded out. You're making no sense. Are you blaming Obama and his administration or not? You went from "I'm blaming obama" to "I'm not accusing anyone". Honestly it makes no difference in the overall conversation, but you're full of contradictions.

Also, you say you have no problem with wearing a seatbelt in your own car... You say you have no problem not being allowed to smoke in a public restaurant... But you have a problem with the government monitoring how much pollution we pump into the air? Bro, you need an ATMOSPHERE to breathe just as much as you need LUNGS to breathe with. Considering one generation doesn't last long enough to notice the effects of their own air pollution doesn't mean the next generation won't notice and suffer. Therefore it makes perfect sense for the govt to regulate carbon emissions of our vehicles. Otherwise you're basically advocating that a dirty atmosphere is just as good as a clean one, when in reality the consequences of our generation's actions have yet to be felt until it's too late.