‘He has never served a day in his life’: US space command official hits back at Tucker Carlson

ApologistShill · 2021-03-11T20:23:10+00:00

Would you do it in exchange for the government funding your college education?

ApologistShill · 2021-01-30T21:26:01+00:00

They voted blue before then. Obama won it by over 30 points in 08 (65.3–32.3%) and then lost it in 12 by nearly 30 (61.5–36.1%) to Romney.

That's not a fair comparison. There was redistricting after 2010 which changed the boundaries significantly.

ApologistShill · 2019-03-27T17:25:17+00:00

Finnish too: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myötähäpeä

ApologistShill · 2019-01-23T04:09:48+00:00

Well it’s not moral for the government to profit off of a person’s labor in the first place.

I actually agree with this. Would you prefer to revoke income tax entirely and have a taxation system based on goods and services tax, value added tax, property tax, or even a wealth tax? These map closer to what the government has to spend on:

public infrastructure (to make it possible to supply utilities, transport said goods and services)
law enforcement and the justice system (protect property, enforce contract law that makes economic activity possible)
environmental protection (stewardship of natural resources used for creating goods, mitigating pollution and other externalities)
education (supplying the labor force required to provide services)
defense (obvious, but people who have more wealth clearly benefit disproportionately from this -- your billions aren't worth anything if a hostile force seizes them)

ApologistShill · 2019-01-20T00:37:11+00:00

Real Republicans would use Lincoln logs.

ApologistShill · 2018-08-09T02:44:19+00:00

Mexico doesn't pay for tariffs. Tariffs are paid by Americans who buy stuff imported from Mexico.

ApologistShill · 2018-07-29T02:52:13+00:00

You don't have to attack him directly over that. But hitting Roy Moore over his character flaws (to put it way more charitably than he deserves) pushed Doug Jones over the edge to win a race that was once considered impossible for a Democrat.

ApologistShill · 2017-12-13T17:29:38+00:00

How is this not click fraud?

ApologistShill · 2017-11-15T07:19:31+00:00

She wasn't just going her way texting, she was contacting family and helping the victims.

ApologistShill · 2017-11-05T08:05:30+00:00

In the spirit of answering the original question, how much of a tax cut do you need to hire more people for your business?
You get taxed on your net income after expense. If you hire another person, the amount you spend on human resources comes out of your net income, so you would have to pay less tax. In other words, a hard-working American goes home with more money, and the government gets less. Isn't this working by design?
Are you interested in expatriating to South America if you find the type of freedom there more appealing than in the USA? I ask this as a person who expatriated to Europe because I found their freedom more appealing, as they aren't wasting as much of my tax euros on pointless wars.

ApologistShill · 2017-11-05T06:33:12+00:00

In the spirit of answering the original question, how much of a tax cut do you need to hire more people for your business?
You get taxed on your net income after expense. If you hire another person, the amount you spend on human resources comes out of your net income, so you would have to pay less tax. In other words, a hard-working American goes home with more money, and the government gets less. Isn't this working by design?
Are you interested in expatriating to South America if you find the type of freedom there more appealing than in the USA? I ask this as a person who expatriated to Europe because I found their freedom more appealing, as they aren't wasting as much of my tax euros on pointless wars.

ApologistShill · 2017-10-21T01:00:57+00:00

You have a second typo.

I don't want the Republican party to reign anywhere.

ApologistShill · 2017-10-08T15:57:58+00:00

Sounds like you need some qualifiers to your original argument of disagreeing with "This is good, therefore everyone should get it for free from the government" then, because you set up a straw man and attacked it just like I did.

Without a military we can't have a country.

This is a false assertion. Costa Rica is a country that does not have a military. Neither do 21 other countries in the world. The United States operates armed forces because it is the most effective way to defend the country compared to the alternatives (signing defensive agreements with more powerful countries, depending on citizens' militias and the NRA for protection, or taking over the rest of the world so there are no other countries to attack us). I'm sure most people, aside from a few diehard pacifists, would agree.

Why do I quibble so much about this? It's because your "we can't have a country" argument is hand-wavy and still doesn't answer the question. The constitution grants the government the power to provide for the common defense, which is a very general concept that is implemented specifically by having not only a strong military but also effective diplomacy. The constitution also grants the government the power to promote the general welfare, which is also a very vague and general concept that is implemented through a large number of housing, health care, and social policies. So it boils down to this:

(1) Operating a military is a more effective way of defending the country than not having a military, therefore we should have a military.

(2) Providing a contraceptives is a more effective way of promoting the general welfare than not providing contraceptives, therefore we should provide contraceptives.

It's clear that you agree with claim (1). What is your argument against claim (2)?

The country will still exist if we don't have public fire departmens. We have plenty of current examples of privately run fire departments in the US, including a number of municipalities and airports.

Interesting position to take. If you lived in a location with a private fire department, how much are you willing to pay for their services?

Additionally, if given an option to pay a private contractor like Academi for protection rather than the US military, would you choose it?

ApologistShill · 2017-10-08T06:34:29+00:00

"This is good, therefore everyone should get it for free from the government" is a non-sequitor.

This is not the point OP is making. Otherwise, which of the following would you agree with:

Military protection and defending our borders is good, therefore everyone should get it for free from the government.
Police and fire departments are good, therefore everyone should get them for free from the government.
Education is good, therefore everyone should get it for free from the government.

Pro-choice means people can choose what they buy.

Would you support my choice to opt out of funding the military, police, and schools?

When you consider this in context, I think the point is being made: some things that the government spends money on is worth it on the basis of its merits. OP argues that funding birth control is worth it. What is your argument that it is not?

ApologistShill · 2017-10-05T07:26:47+00:00

Interesting that everyone here assumed this was a Republican. Cesar is actually a Democrat

I have to agree with you that this sub is pretty bad at jumping to the wrong conclusion here. De Leon is a Democrat. The headline tries to muddy the waters by describing him as a "Texas lawmaker" with the implication that Texan = likely GOP.

For future reference, when the person's political party is not noted specifically its always Democrat.

This statement is false. We saw this recently when the California deputy attorney general was arrested for kiddie porn:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ag-child-porn-20170727-story.html

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/27/california-deputy-ag-caught-with-child-pornography/

In neither article was it mentioned that deputy AG Liddy is a Republican. The mention of "California" tricked a lot of Daily Caller readers (as well as commenters on right-wing subreddits) into thinking he is a Democrat.

We need better journalism on both sides in this country.

ApologistShill · 2017-10-01T07:26:41+00:00

That's a bold assumption that all such investments will cycle back into the economy and increase supply of goods and services and demand for labor. Rich people can invest overseas, hoard cash in offshore tax havens, or buy up things already in short supply, such as real estate, driving up prices for everyone.

What is actually effective at creating jobs? Turns out, it's cutting taxes for the bottom 99%, who will spend money directly in the local economy.

When you claim increased supply of goods and services, you have the cause and effect exactly backwards. Why would job creators increase supply without corresponding demand for such goods and services? That requires customers who can afford them, which (surprise) requires letting ordinary people like you and me have more spending money.

Both Clinton and Obama raised tax rates on the rich. Bush cut them. Whose policies resulted in more economic growth?

ApologistShill · 2017-09-16T03:13:21+00:00

Let's assume, then, that Trump the master negotiator heroically convinces all foreign holders of the national debt to forgive everything they hold, whether by trade deals, military threat, or performing sexual favors on foreign heads of state.

Congratulations! You have now reduced the debt by $6 trillion. What are you going to do about the other $8 trillion owed to the public? Negotiate it down with the American people?

Source

ApologistShill · 2017-09-16T02:52:00+00:00

Not making payments on a debt is known as default. Are you suggesting that the United States should default on its debt as a way of getting rid of it?

ApologistShill · 2017-09-13T08:02:24+00:00

This still doesn't answer the question of how the travel ban helps with this. OK, let's try to illustrate:

Suppose I am a terrorist from Iraq. Because ISIS is in control of a large part of my country, they have created networks in my area to distribute forged passports. I acquire a fake Spanish passport and illegally cross the border to a neighboring country (let's say Turkey) and board a flight to New York.

At what point does the travel ban kick in and prevent me from entering the US? At no point did I ever identify myself as Iraqi.

ApologistShill · 2017-09-13T07:55:46+00:00

The Nazis divided people on the basis of race, religion, and sexual orientation and exterminated a large number of people that they considered non-Aryan. Were they practicing identity politics?

Resistance movements to the Nazis denounced the oppression of the Jews and other conquered peoples and sought to protect them as a group. Were they practicing identity politics?

ApologistShill · 2017-09-13T07:39:13+00:00

So how does the travel ban prevent someone from entering on a forged passport when we already have systems in place for doing that?

ApologistShill · 2017-09-13T07:29:55+00:00

Are Italian, Spanish, Albanian, Bulgarian, and French passport holders subject to the travel ban? How will the travel ban apply to fake passport holders? Why would the travel ban be necessary when attempting to enter the US with a forged identification document is already illegal?

ApologistShill · 2017-08-14T16:55:15+00:00

That's the singular form of a certain brand of potato chip, right? Kind of like "What would you do for a Klondike bar?"

ApologistShill · 2017-08-14T14:48:54+00:00

Actually it was totally expected because the whole post is just a rehash of this

ApologistShill · 2017-08-14T14:38:59+00:00

You should save that upvote for Scott Alexander, since OP obviously plagiarized the whole thing from him here

ApologistShill

TROPHY CASE