It's from the messiah's playbook:
When you can't debate the topic with logic, then aim absurd comments at the other person.

tailgater wrote:

Are you saying that the Federal budget is simple? Or that how funds should be spent is simple?
I would believe you thought so. Seems lots of people do.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. I guess the budget is just too complex for those of us that only balance the budgets of our households or businesses.

No, the federal budget is not simple but SHOULD be. That is the problem. How should funds be spent? If you approach it logically rather than emotionally that is easy to determine. Unfortunately, liberalism views the world through the lens of feelings and gray areas which just mucks everything up.

As for my comparison being without merit, simply look at the President’s behavior and that of an addict. If you cannot see the parallels or refuse to acknowledge the similarity, than this conversation is over as I can only infer that you are (most likely) blinded by you biases.

TimFusco wrote:

Of course I was for the wars. Everyone knows we conservatives love kill’n and stuff, almost as much as we love starv’n poor women and children.

This is probably going to shock you, but as a Libertarian, I was against the wars due to my political beliefs. As a Christian who follows Covenant Reform Theology (the Theology of the Reformers, which sadly is now the minority Christian view in the US), I also opposed the war with Iraq on moral grounds. Reform Theology teaches that any war that is not defensive is immoral. It could be argued that the first Gulf War was in defense of Kuwait, and therefore moral. It could also be argued that the Afghan War was in defense of our nation, which had been attacked, though that argument is weak. The Iraq War was not defensive, but an aggression by the US, and therefore immoral.

Leaving Jersey is going to take a while. The new place news a few months of work (paint, new kitchen, new baths, hardwood floors, deck replacement, etc.), and the old place needs work before I can put it on the market. Plus I have to do it all while trying to feed my family in this crap economy. But thanks for asking.

dpnewell wrote:

Actually, the OP did use logic. He presented a seemingly preposterous statement, then backed it up with a logical perspective to explain what he meant ("he's like an addict because...").
If you disagree, then explain why.

As for your conservative playbook quote, I'm not sure I follow you.
When do the conservatives say that?
If anything, they claim they already pay MORE than their fair share.
I think you may have misquoted yourself here.

tailgater wrote:

:-k
You pulled a trailer with a 280z.. 😕

DrafterX wrote:

"Albatross!! Albatross!! Albatross!!"
"What flavour is it?"

Buckwheat wrote:

I suppose if “addiction” was meant as a crude metaphor then one could claim some logic. By that measure Bush was a whore. But these are emotional characterizations (and I think mine is more accurate).

I get it that it just feels good and right to say the President is acting out of a physiological disorder. But it is less than constructive and is poor rhetoric.

Brewha wrote:

Oh, about the conservative playbook – That was the technique that I was giving an example of, phrased from a liberal point of view, just to be inflammatory. I suppose a conservative would have said “we just spend too much on the lazy – it’s just that simple”
Anyway, Fox News teaches this technique 31 (that’s what you get if you add 24 and 7).

Brewha wrote:

Fox news is fair and balanced... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Are you saying that the Federal budget is simple? Or that how funds should be spent is simple?
I would believe you thought so. Seems lots of people do.

Your assertion that current government spending is based on the President having a behavior disorder is undemonstrated and without merit. It is nothing more than your frustration taking to print.

Perhaps that 'lib professor' didn't have much of an audience . . . . .

Brewha wrote:

It is very easy to look at something seemingly unwieldy and large, and proclaim that due to its size and complexity that it must be handled with "nuance." In reality, that's a load of crap.

jpotts wrote:

The "worms eye view" is not what you claim it is. Maybe you should reflect on your ignorance in these matters.

jpotts wrote:

If I looked like either of you I would avoid all reflections

teedubbya wrote:

Then how would you ever see your wee-wee?

tailgater wrote:

basic physics using leverage etc.

teedubbya wrote: