No. of Recommendations: 0
After I said:
<<If all you look at is spending, you're only looking at part of the picture.>>

Cliff offered:
which, by the way, is an unsupported argument. It sounds rather like an opinion. This might be a good time for you to make a logical argument as to why you think this. Would you feel that is a fair assesment?

The four main avenues for the expression of government power are tax policy, spending policy, regulatory policy and fed fiscal policy. You could also add foreign policy, but imho it is encompassed within the other four. Can we agree on these and if not, what would you add, subtract or otherwise change?

All of these have an impact on the cost of governing our society. Agreed?

If yes, then a claim that Bush is no more fiscally conservative than LBJ has to take all of them into account, not just spending policy. Agreed?

It isn't clear to me that sykesix was considering anything other than spending policy. Since she didn't disagree with me, I'm assuming she accepted my statement. That's an unsupported assumption, but I'm not in a position to support it. If you, me and she agree, then we are in agreement on this statement.

<<If all you look at is spending, you're only looking at part of the picture.>>


<<You seemed to be trying to convince me that you are a fiscal conservative, but so far, all I'm hearing is candidate bashing on one (albeit important) issue. Is that an unfair assessment?>>

Yes, it is an unfair assessment. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Then perhaps you should clarify what you're trying to do. I would appreciate it.

I claim to be a fiscal conservative. I stated the reasons why. You seem to be obfuscating again. Why are you disregarding the support that I already gave for my claim?

Your credibility kind of fell apart when you expressed a belief that candidates' campaign claims are relevant and then you offered Dean as a fiscally conservative alternative to Bush. Are you now saying that campaign claims are irrelevant? or just ignoring Dean's? Please clarify.

<<I agree that there is nothing invalid about stating an opinion that something is unsatisfactory, and sure it would be logical to start searching, but since you aren't finding, it appears that all you are doing is aligning yourself with the irrational Bush-haters. Is this an unfair assessment of your behavior?>>

Not only is it unfair, it is a totally unsupported opinion. I have never aligned myself with the bush-haters. Do you agree? Why or why not?

I do not agree, because you are expressing opposition to Bush just as they are. Is that not alignment with them against Bush? or are you not against Bush? Please clarify.

<<Maybe, but are you really actively seeking a solution and honestly speaking, are you finding one?>>

You avoided these questions. Are you actively seeking? Are you finding?

<<If you're going to campaign against Bush on one issue, shouldn't you at least be able to create a plausible reason based on that same issue for endorsing someone else?>>

NO. Look again. Both views are logically complete and stand on their own. Bush administration is not fiscally conservative

I'm still not sure you've compared it to an appropriate standard, but I'll accept it as your belief. If you are comparing it to your guess about how somebody who's campaign claims you're ignoring would perform your credibility will sink even further.

I am actively seeking a candidate who will rectify the problem of reckless spending (which I supported throughout the thread) as I see it.

I'll assume this is true, but it isn't verifiable as far as I can tell.

Declaring that a problem exists does not imply that an immediate solution is known.


Would you agree with this logic?

The three statements don't combine to form a logical argument.

Let's try another approach.

Campaigning against Bush may contribute to the election of somebody who is less fiscally conservative. Agreed?

If yes and if your goal is to rectify the situation, then your actions could be harmful to your cause. Agreed?

If yes, then why wouldn't you avoid campaigning against Bush until you know who will be running against him? Do you believe all of his potential opponents are more fiscally conservative than him?

{{I find it refreshing that you do not blindly follow any one party. However, I have yet to see you add any compelling reason why Bush is better than any of the other candidates. Can you prove that he is a better candidate?}}

<<Nope, I won't even try. If I vote for him, it will be because it seems like the right thing to do at the time.>>

Surely, you can make a better effort than that. Intellectual laziness? You could always flip a coin....

I might. If the alternatives appear that equal, I can't see how it would make much difference. However, since I base my voting on societal ideals and government principles, I suspect I'll have a clear choice. I'm leaving the door open for either party to move in a direction that will make the other more attractive.

It appears that you are leaning toward "anybody but Bush regardless of how fiscally inconservative they are". Is it possible you will end up voting for Bush and if so, how likely do you think that will be?

You still haven't answered my question about considering the differences between first term and second term candidates. Is there any particular reason you're avoiding it?

Also, due to the fact that you didn't directly answer a question, I've inferred that you aren't yet endorsing any of the Democrats. Is this correct?

Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.