You're a socialist, geezer. Why not just admit it?
Soon, there won't be enough revenue to fund socialist programs. The income tax is dead in the face of global economic permeability. The only thing that will continue the programs is a deeper government proboscis into more people.
Hmmmm:
Fallacy: Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim.
Fallacy: Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- Topic A is under discussion.
- Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
- Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
When one no longer has a valid argument or position falsly charge the messenger of an association that is unpalatable, change the subject from the real issue under discussion, and attack the messenger and claim he holds a position inverse of his true one.
Pitiful
But you are, indeed, a socialist. You seek to save the socialist structure in America by insuring its financing. This is not
ad hominem; it is a statement of deductive reasoning like saying a person that you see giving drugs and getting money is a drug dealer.
Nor is it a red herring. A NRST will guarantee financing of the socialist system, obviously. One who argues for an NRST takes on the primary effect and/or agenda of an NRST, therefore he is either not thought it through, is dumb or agrees with the agenda.
You have obviously thought it through and are not dumb. And, in prior posts, you have agreed with and advocated the concept of a government disbursing public funds to individuals not on contract for goods and services furnished to the government.
It is never misdirection or diversion of attention for the agenda of an advocate to be known. It is entirely relevant to know that one who politicks for sheep safety is really a wolf in disguise.
Nor is it a personal attack. It is a personal opinion on my part and a personal criticism toward your part. I criticize each person who works toward a bigger government and deeper socialism.
I have no personal animosity toward you; I would probably hire you at a good rate for a number of tasks were I an employer and you an applicant, and all I knew was your work for the NRST on FR.
I also realize you may not think of yourself as a socialist. The kernel of the systems has been expanding since 1935. That's long enough for the condition to have become SOP for many. But a person is a socialist if his purposes work toward socialism, whether he is aware of the label or not, because that will be the result of his efforts.
