Lyle Andersen: The only facts I see are ,way to many people truly believe if they truly believe in an pinons hard enough and deep enough that makes them true, or as [redacted] says a fact. [Redacted] believe in himself,a lot which can be a good thing some of the time. I come to this conclusion by his use of the 'I' word almost 40 times.
I'm not advancing opinion, I'm advancing the facts. This isn't a case where I am "insisting" that I'm "right" because that's what "I want." For example, I pointed out facts about government intervention in the free market. This is historical fact. I'm not making this up, and I'm not just voicing it because it harms the Democrats/progressives.
I'm mentioning it because it happened in history. I'm repeating FACTs. It's a fact that we had a depression in the 1920s. It's a fact that that depression that did not last the entire decade back then. In fact, it was approximately a year in duration. The government did little to nothing to try to bring that economy back. The free market corrected the economy, and it came right back.
The following decade, we had the Great Depression. This largely resulted from government intervention into the economy when the free market was trying to "correct" the economy.
Again, you have to be extremely delusional if you're going to insist that this is nothing but "opinion." It's not.
Study after study has been done on the government's impact on the economy. It's simply human nature. If you threaten the rich, superrich, business owners, etc., with more taxes, they're going to have less incentive to spend money. Or, they'll sit on their money more and invest in economy less.
That's a fact, not opinion.
Lyle Andersen: The only fact I openly embrace is ,JFK openly embrace brings being called a liberal. JFK turn Cuba missile crisis , without firing a shot. A liberal idea. Therefore I don't mind being called a liberal.
That resulted from JFK botching up of a major foreign policy decision. His predecessor had authorized a joint Cuban immigrant and us military operation that would've toppled Fidel Castro.
All that was needed was the Navy's air power. At the last minute, JFK called it off.
Had the Navy pilots been able to do their part, they would've destroyed Cuban Air power and destroyed Cuban armor on the ground. The Cuban immigrants were destroying the Cuban military on the ground during the battle.
Unfortunately, JFK called off the air power.
It was JFK's decision, to not to carry out the United States' part of the operation, that emboldened Nikita Khrushchev to deploy nuclear weapons to Cuba. He rightfully saw that the United States was a paper tiger under JFK. He saw JFK as a weak leader.
In order to get the Russians to withdraw their missiles, the United States had to give up a forward nuclear missile position. At the end of this scenario, the United States was "weaker" relative to the USSR.
Lyle Andersen: You didn't destroy any thing.
I thoroughly destroyed your arguments above. For example, you showcased JFK in the way he handled the "Cuba Missile Crisis." You demonstrated your lack of knowledge of history. By ignoring the fact that had it not been for John F. Kennedy's backing down, we would not have had that crisis in the first place.
You also completely forgot that at the end of that crisis, we were in a slightly more disadvantaged position than what we were in before.
This is one example of how I went through and destroyed your arguments point by point. You refused to acknowledge that. However, your refusing to acknowledge that does not dismiss the fact that you've totally been discredited on this thread... And that you've been destroyed in this argument.
Lyle Andersen: [redacted] flaws with your argument.
No, my argument is solid. It has been solid throughout this thread.
You claimed that my argument has "flaws," quotation marks used strongly, however you didn't advance an argument addressing my rebuttals. You did nothing to prove me "wrong." All you're doing is talking about your opinion about what I did.
How about advancing the facts to "prove" me "wrong"? So far, you failed. You exposed NO flaws in my argument.
Lyle Andersen: You Most likely have a business degree an not journalism.
The kind of degree that I have has no bearing on the topic of this thread outside of any discussion of the economy. When it comes to the parts of this thread that have nothing to do with the economy, it doesn't matter if I have a business degree or not. What matters is that I have the relevant facts.
For someone that claims that he likes to "stick with the facts," you continue to fail to do your research to see whether or not I'm "wrong." Again, quotation marks used strongly.
Lyle Andersen: And I do complement you on your typing skills.
What part of the following statement did you not understand?
"Brought to you by Dragon NaturallySpeaking 13." -- [Redacted]
"NaturallySpeaking" suggests that there was "speaking" involved in generating these posts. You, having claimed that you learned to, "stick with the facts," would've seen that as my generating these posts using "speech to text."
Using dictation software on online debates is my standard operating procedure. Next time, pull your head out of your poop chute and remove your horse blinders before you fart out of your mouth.
Lyle Andersen: It is call the four W's you simple minded BS Degree.
Wrong, Stupid, it's called the FIVE W's of journalism.
Also, for someone that claims to "stick to the facts," I don't have a BS Degree. In fact, you apparently know who [redacted] is. Why don't you just ask [redacted] what degrees I have? Why don't you just ask any of my brothers on this thread what kind of degree I have?
Hint: It's a graduate-level degree, and it's not a "BS."
The only BS that I'm seeing here is I what I see you posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment