Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Uiiop]

@Grave_n_idle,


Bullshit.

Here is the post I rebutted:

I love how Obamacult directly acknowledges that his big long list is a list of strawmen. (As in, they're easily refuted arguments, which is why he's refuting them without anyone actually making them.)

Maybe I should just repeat myself too:

Letting each state set their own economic policies with no federal involvement is only a non-terrible idea if that includes letting them set tariffs on imports from other states and/or issue their own currencies.(bullshit, I never advocated this) (Examples: Greece and the Euro crisis; Mexico post-NAFTA and the resulting surge of emigrants to the US) So, basically turning the US into a confederation of countries rather than one country (more bullshit, I never advocated this). Even then, it wouldn't be a great idea. (Economic slowdown and resulting political discord.)

Regulating trade across the entirety of a unified market, and redistributing resources to offset inevitable disparities, is a legitimate and necessary function of government. To say nothing of issues like civil rights (more ill-informed bullshit, indeed removing the federal govt. from mismanaging and being corrupted and distracted by economic issues will insure that it is better positioned and focus to do what I have always stated that it does best: protect life, liberty, private property and enforce contracts). The South only seceded in the first place in order to continue being a bunch of asshole racists; they had nothing else to gain from it. I'll never understand how people can think that isn't a relevant point.

Indeed, I challenge you to cite a single instance in this thread where I advocated the federal govt. aborgate its Constitutional responsibility to regulate trade.

IN sum, read the thread before making these sweeping nonsensical attacks because I really am getting bored.

Alright, Alright..i didn't want to post in this but i'm sure he wasn't implying that. From what i got of his point from his post is that your debating METHOD is hypocritical.
Method/=/ Stance
Inform me where he claimed the bolded if it isn't a "Bullshit starwman" of yours if you don't mind please.

[Obamacult]

I'll leave you to your digging.

Is that the closest you get to admitting defeat?

The hard cold truth for your enjoyment:

viewtopic.php?p=13244251#p13244251

No objective, rational and independent thinking person would assert that I supported the nonsense that absolute wage rates were the driving force for migration when it is painfully obvious that a combination of wage rates AND costs of living was the primary determining factor driving migration.

My statement again:

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Note that --- it is a combination or ratio or wages/costs of living that determines migration trends. How anyone can equate my statement above to absolute wages is beyond me. Indeed, the lack of substantive argumentation and the increasingly shrill and nonsensical rebuts are really too ridiculous to even justify with my time.

[Obamacult]

@Grave_n_idle,


Bullshit.

Here is the post I rebutted:



Indeed, I challenge you to cite a single instance in this thread where I advocated the federal govt. aborgate its Constitutional responsibility to regulate trade.

IN sum, read the thread before making these sweeping nonsensical attacks because I really am getting bored.

Alright, Alright..i didn't want to post in this but i'm sure he wasn't implying that. From what i got of his point from his post is that your debating METHOD is hypocritical.
Method/=/ Stance
Inform me where he claimed the bolded if it isn't a "Bullshit starwman" of yours if you don't mind please.

If you go back and read the posts from the beginning, you will see that most, if not all, of the fallacies that I answered were ACTUALLY issued on this thread.

Indeed, that is why I presented the list as a rebut to predicted and actual fallacious arguments against my argument for a more strudy federalist system.

Go back and read the posts. YOu might be amused.

[Mavorpen]

No objective, rational and independent thinking person would assert that I supported the nonsense that absolute wage rates were the driving force for migration

Which wasn't what I said. I stated that you were claiming that there is a correlation between wages and migration. There HAS to be, otherwise wages wouldn't play into migration and your statement would be nonsensical.

when it is painfully obvious that a combination of wage rates AND costs of living was the primary determining factor driving migration.

And again, I point to the hilarious event of you completely contradicting this a mere sentence before.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Note that --- it is a combination or ratio or wages/costs of living that determines migration trends. How anyone can equate my statement above to absolute wages is beyond me. Indeed, the lack of substantive argumentation and the increasingly shrill and nonsensical rebuts are really too ridiculous to even justify with my time.

I said nothing about absolute wages. I simply stated that you were claiming that there is a correlation between wages and migration patterns, which there is none. There is none. None whatsoever. In order for the combination of wages and costs of living to determine migration, there would need to be a correlation, however small (though it must be statistically significant), between wages itself and migration.

In a similar manner, if you state that, "the combination of soil and water determines how efficiently a plant grows," it only takes the cognitive abilities of a 13 year old to realize that soil itself would need to have a correlation with plant growth.

It baffles me how this extremely simple concept flew over your head.

[Obamacult]

No objective, rational and independent thinking person would assert that I supported the nonsense that absolute wage rates were the driving force for migration

Which wasn't what I said. I stated that you were claiming that there is a correlation between wages and migration. There HAS to be, otherwise wages wouldn't play into migration and your statement would be nonsensical.

when it is painfully obvious that a combination of wage rates AND costs of living was the primary determining factor driving migration.

And again, I point to the hilarious event of you completely contradicting this a mere sentence before.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Note that --- it is a combination or ratio or wages/costs of living that determines migration trends. How anyone can equate my statement above to absolute wages is beyond me. Indeed, the lack of substantive argumentation and the increasingly shrill and nonsensical rebuts are really too ridiculous to even justify with my time.

I said nothing about absolute wages. I simply stated that you were claiming that there is a correlation between wages and migration patterns, which there is none. There is none. None whatsoever. In order for the combination of wages and costs of living to determine migration, there would need to be a correlation, however small, between wages itself and migration.

In a similar manner, if you state that, "the combination of soil and water determines how efficiently a plant grows," it only takes the cognitive abilities of a 13 year old to realize that soil itself would need to have a correlation with plant growth.

It baffles me how this extremely simple concept flew over your head.

It is appropriate and amusing that you would cite an analogy using soil juxtaposed the ever deeper hole you are digging.

[Condunum]

Is that the closest you get to admitting defeat?

The hard cold truth for your enjoyment:

viewtopic.php?p=13244251#p13244251

No objective, rational and independent thinking person would assert that I supported the nonsense that absolute wage rates were the driving force for migration when it is painfully obvious that a combination of wage rates AND costs of living was the primary determining factor driving migration.

My statement again:

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Note that --- it is a combination or ratio or wages/costs of living that determines migration trends. How anyone can equate my statement above to absolute wages is beyond me. Indeed, the lack of substantive argumentation and the increasingly shrill and nonsensical rebuts are really too ridiculous to even justify with my time.

This isn't my argument, so I'm just going to point this out: stop using buzz words. You aren't making yourself smarter.

No objective, rational and independent thinking person would assert that I...

Right there. I could be rational and still think that. I could also be independant thinking, which I am, and think that. Stop. using. Buzz words.

[Mavorpen]

It is appropriate and amusing that you would cite an analogy using soil juxtaposed the ever deeper hole you are digging.

Your personal opinion, while deeply appreciated, is not valid. How funny that you reply with an inane retort full of fallacious nonsense. When you are ready to present a shred of logical, factual, and empirical evidence, please reply back.

[Uiiop]

Alright, Alright..i didn't want to post in this but i'm sure he wasn't implying that. From what i got of his point from his post is that your debating METHOD is hypocritical.
Method/=/ Stance
Inform me where he claimed the bolded if it isn't a "Bullshit starwman" of yours if you don't mind please.

If you go back and read the posts from the beginning, you will see that most, if not all, of the fallacies that I answered were ACTUALLY issued on this thread.

Indeed, that is why I presented the list as a rebut to predicted and actual fallacious arguments against my argument for a more strudy federalist system.

Go back and read the posts. YOu might be amused.

Hmm...thanks for the reply. It might be my bias sir (although i think i'm only as biased as anyone else) but i'm not seeing any examples as of yet. Would you mind showing me some examples of these posts with the fallacies corresponding to them please? I just want to see the amount of honesty to dishonesty in the thread.

[Obamacult]

If you go back and read the posts from the beginning, you will see that most, if not all, of the fallacies that I answered were ACTUALLY issued on this thread.

Indeed, that is why I presented the list as a rebut to predicted and actual fallacious arguments against my argument for a more strudy federalist system.

Go back and read the posts. YOu might be amused.

Hmm...thanks for the reply. It might be my bias sir (although i think i'm only as biased as anyone else) but i'm not seeing any examples as of yet. Would you mind showing me some examples of these posts with the fallacies corresponding to them please? I just want to see the amount of honesty to dishonesty in the thread.

Did you see the empty retorts, the vacuous comments from rigid ideologues in the first few pages!

I was taken aback by the preponderence of inane retorts completely devoid of any shred of substantive or thoughtful response.

However, if you can force yourself past the first few pages you will see the makings of many strawman arguments -- most notably the strawman notion that removing the federal govt. from mismanagement of economic issues is a return to the Articles. Also, I had to deal with an illogical argument that government further from the people is more 'effective and responsive'?! Another stated that removing the Federal govt. from economic mismanagement would lead to lynchings and that the notion of federalism was somehow racist?!

[Grave_n_idle]

@Grave_n_idle,


Bullshit.

If all you're going to do is denial, I'm just going to repeat the link. I'm not interested in your constant revisionism - and on the internet, you can be held accountable - so every time you repeat the lie, I'll just repeat the link.

[Cerian Quilor]

The states are badly run, mismanaged hellholes at best, and third-world banna republics at worst.

I will seriously KILL people to prevent some sort of devolution to the states. I'll be dead in a few years at most if it happens anyway.

[Genivaria]

@Grave_n_idle,


Bullshit.

If all you're going to do is denial, I'm just going to repeat the link. I'm not interested in your constant revisionism - and on the internet, you can be held accountable - so every time you repeat the lie, I'll just repeat the link.

Grave_n_idle = Winning.

[Mavorpen]

@Grave_n_idle,


Bullshit.

If all you're going to do is denial, I'm just going to repeat the link. I'm not interested in your constant revisionism - and on the internet, you can be held accountable - so every time you repeat the lie, I'll just repeat the link.

I liked how he didn't even reply to me when I posted this.

[Herador]

Stop. using. Buzz words.

I suspect without buzz words, this threads word count would be significantly lower.

[Obamacult]

It is telling that the progressive peanut gallery is manifestly unable to engage in a single substantive factual, logical and empirically supported argument to refute a single tenet I have offered previously outlining the benefits of transferring management of economic issues now corrupting and distracting the federal govt. to the individual states and citizens.

For example, we now have grave n' idle engaged in a superfluous semantics exercise (a manufactured phantom that has nothing to do with undermining any of the major or minor arguments I have offered throughout the thread) and mavorpen engaged in absurd claiming that the following statement I made equates to high wages lead to migration (pure bullshit):

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

With respect to the grave n' idle sideshow that does absolutely nothing to undermine a more vigorous Federalist system for America -- on one hand, I am attacked for exposing the numerous inane retorts, fallacious arguments, outright irrelevant sideshows and bullshit (like that emanating from grave and mavorpen) and on the other hand, I am further attacked for taking steps to anticipate and respond to said bullshit by presenting rebuts beforehand to these expected fallacious arguments.

Nice.

No wonder this thread has devolved into an exercise in fallacious irreverent diversions ---- the progressive side is apoplectic in their manifest inability to respond and rebut with anything remotely on topic.

The federal govt. has been bankrupt and corrupted mismanaging economic issues best left to the states, and yet the progressivse in govt., private sector,and on these threads have either stuck their collective heads in the sand and denied the survival level problem facing our society, passed the blame or engaged in ad hominems, fallacious diversions and outright bullshit.

[Obamacult]

Nope. If anything the Federal government needs more power in the US

Can you support that statement with something other than your personal opinion?

[Samuraikoku]

Can you support that statement with something other than your personal opinion?

Said the pot to the kettle.

[Obamacult]

Can you support that statement with something other than your personal opinion?

Said the pot to the kettle.

The double standards from the progressive side is palpable and telling.

Indeed, I can produce single posts that contain more substantive, objective, factual and empirically supported data and research than the sum of all progressive posts on this thread.

[Samuraikoku]

The double standards from the progressive side is palpable and telling.

Indeed, I can produce single posts that contain more substantive, objective, factual and empirically supported data and research than the sum of all progressive posts on this thread.

A boast you have yet to make good on in all the time you've been posting.

[Obamacult]

The double standards from the progressive side is palpable and telling.

Indeed, I can produce single posts that contain more substantive, objective, factual and empirically supported data and research than the sum of all progressive posts on this thread.

A boast you have yet to make good on in all the time you've been posting.

With respect to the following -- my post below contains more peer reviewed research than all other progressive posts combined:

viewtopic.php?p=13106903&sid=2ca7b4b113d5e432fd3667c7ebd92953#p13106903

In fact, I don't think any progressive has offered any objective and substantive data and research, much less peer reviewed findings.

You stand corrected.

[Samuraikoku]

A boast you have yet to make good on in all the time you've been posting.

With respect to the following -- my post below contains more peer reviewed research than all other progressive posts combined:

viewtopic.php?p=13106903&sid=2ca7b4b113d5e432fd3667c7ebd92953#p13106903

In fact, I don't think any progressive has offered any objective and substantive data and research, much less peer reviewed findings.

You stand corrected.

So I'm supposed to look at articles that say that public debt undermines economic growth, and for that I must believe that the U.S. Government must break up?

Sorry, I stand here not corrected, but mystified.

[Regnum Dominae]

It should not be broken up.

However, it should be shrunk significantly.

There should be a federal court system like today, and I prefer one military to 50 dysfunctional militaries.

[Mavorpen]

and mavorpen engaged in absurd claiming that the following statement I made equates to high wages lead to migration (pure bullshit):

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Your personal opinion, while appreciated, is not valid. I have presented empirical evidence refuting you several times, and you only reply back with inane retorts devoid of any logical, factual, or empirical evidence.

It's hard to believe that you still have not even read your own post.



Your "or" signified that you were stating either or. In other words, it's a ratio or combination of the two things that determines migration. Nonetheless, absolute wage rates is a different animal than the ratio of wages per costs of living.

Now, even if we ignore all of this, you STILL made the claim that standard of living is what determines migration and not wages or cost of living, and then you stated the exact opposite in the very next sentence. You have utterly failed to even address this part of my post. Don't think you're getting off that easily by distracting me with your, "Lul u dont understand ratios."

According to the data, State Y by far. Because as I've shown you over and over, wages and income has virtually no correlation between migration. Meanwhile, cost of living by comparison is at least significantly more consistent.

(Image)

No thank you. I'll continue exposing your contradictory statements and outright lying.

[/quote]
Please address my arguments instead of running away and whining like a 5 year old that bullies are being mean to you on the playground.

[Obamacult]

It should not be broken up.

However, it should be shrunk significantly.

There should be a federal court system like today, and I prefer one military to 50 dysfunctional militaries.

Agreed, that is substance of Federalism, a version of what I have outlined in this thread.

[Obamacult]

and mavorpen engaged in absurd claiming that the following statement I made equates to high wages lead to migration (pure bullshit):

Your personal opinion, while appreciated, is not valid. I have presented empirical evidence refuting you several times, and you only reply back with inane retorts devoid of any logical, factual, or empirical evidence.

It's hard to believe that you still have not even read your own post.



Your "or" signified that you were stating either or. In other words, it's a ratio or combination of the two things that determines migration. Nonetheless, absolute wage rates is a different animal than the ratio of wages per costs of living.

Now, even if we ignore all of this, you STILL made the claim that standard of living is what determines migration and not wages or cost of living, and then you stated the exact opposite in the very next sentence. You have utterly failed to even address this part of my post. Don't think you're getting off that easily by distracting me with your, "Lul u dont understand ratios."

According to the data, State Y by far. Because as I've shown you over and over, wages and income has virtually no correlation between migration. Meanwhile, cost of living by comparison is at least significantly more consistent.

(Image)

No thank you. I'll continue exposing your contradictory statements and outright lying.

Please address my arguments instead of running away and whining like a 5 year old that bullies are being mean to you on the playground.[/quote]

You amuse me.

First you manufacture pure bullshit by saying that the following quote implies that I think higher wages increase migration:

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.--Obamacult

Then you pile on this fallacious nonsense by engaging in ad hominems and inane retorts.

Yes, amusing and illustrative if nothing else.

Moreover, your recent fallacious sub-thread has predictably contributed absolutely nothing to refute my version of a more effective federal system.

In sum, it is a futile diversion of dubious value -- more so than grave n' idle demonstration which at least has some merit, if just another diversionary exercise that does nothing to refute my version of a more effective federal system.

Nonetheless, I am sure that the bevy of progressives that follow my every post from thread to thread will be issuing more fallacious arguments and inane retorts when facts, logic and empirical evidence are lacking.