GatewayRedbirds.com

Jesus [expletive] christ. We're parsing words here which is always a grand time. But #1 could = #2 because of the word most. What definition of most are we using here? Most > or = 51%? What does varying entail? What about many?

In no way to RX ever say he wants to cut everything by 43% which is what the counterargument was. it's [expletive] stupid and annoying waste of time argument having to explain that most (which isn't even quantified) and everything don't mean the same thing.

Back to the important part of this, I'm going to say that #1 is the more correct statement.

Cutting 43% from every program to cut the budget 43% total is a stupid idea and takes little thought. True. But, that's not what anyone said because lo and behold most and everything don't mean the same thing.

And, going back even further, most might be an overstatement. Hence, exaggerating a hyperbolic statement to make a strawman is a horrible argument, waste of time and incredibly misleading way to present the facts.

Well, it took all of about half a day for me to get annoyed all while not even talking about the facts, positions or previous performance. So, peace out.

_________________

You still don't understand the confusion on this statement?

That's not misrepresenting at all. The counterargument isn't about all vs most. The issue taken was with 43% arbitrary cuts vs 90% cuts in some places against 10% cuts in others to reach a 43% reduction is spending.

He said he advocates cutting most programs by 43%. The word most isn't the confusion here. This statement says cutting a by 43% and b by 43% and c by 43% is the goal. Maybe it make more sense to cut x by 90% to get to an overall reduction by 43%?

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but that was the confusion. Cursing and insulting someone because they didn't understand a confusing statement is not helpful. This isn't calling someone out for your vs you're when the intent was clear. The statement made implies 43% reductions to programs he chooses, instead of a 43% reduction in total spending by varying cuts in programs. You understand how those are different statements? The former is what was said, you seem to be arguing the latter is what was meant and that's fine.

Making a static, arbitrary cut to any number of programs just to reduce the total spent is arbitrary and avoids decisions. Setting a goal for overall reduction of 43% by cutting some number of federal programs at least offers the chance to make decisions.

_________________

Also, a 43% cut to federal spending is stupid and a pipe dream no matter how allocated.

_________________
Underachievers, please try harder.

Here's how I responsded to Greenbacks counterargument:



what RX said originally 'most' programs likely isn't exactly correct.

Here's the positions regarding spending and the deficit. Notice it nowhere mentions cutting most, any or all programs by 43%.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/s ... he-deficit

_________________

He said making arbitrary cuts to any number of programs by an arbitrary amount avoids decisions. He is 100% correct. He never mentioned Johnson by name.

You accused him of misrepresenting a bullet point from Rx. He didn't. The bullet said GJ's position was cutting an arbitrary amount to some number of programs. I never suggested he mentions cutting many, most, any or all programs by 43%. Rx did. That's a dumb idea. You're saying it's not his position. Cool by me.

Where's the confusion?

_________________

It was my quote, and i'll clarify. I was not 100% sure about what johnson wanted to cut specifically, so i threw out the "most" assuming that you guys would understand that to mean in the big spending areas--defense, medical care, etc. I think he has stated that he wants a 43% (ballpark) cut in these areas, which comprise a large portion of our spending, and aim 43% cut overall, which is the main goal, which i admittedly failed to communicate in my original post. Whatever. I think my use of the word "most" in this case was appropriate.

These obviously aren't meant to be concrete numbers anyways so arguing semantics is kind of ridiculous.

Anyways, heres a pretty good op-ed today about johnson and it touches on the 43% thing.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2 ... a-two.html

Wouldn't that put it about where Bush had it at the beginning of his presidency.

_________________

Johnson has been quoted saying a 43% cut to defense would put it at '03 levels.

more on his economic policies:

None of which suggests that he has the slightest clue as to how to construct a balanced budget for 2013 as he recommends. Farm subsidies, earmarks, and stimulus spending? Not even close. Eliminating the Medicare prescription drug benefit and foreign military base closures would go farther but not still not anywhere near that target. Eliminating the deficit in 2013 isn't remotely feasible politically and is a terrible idea regardless.

Also, those Federal Reserve comments don't sound like much of a contrast to Ron Paulism.

_________________
Underachievers, please try harder.

1) His NUMBER ONE campaign promise is to submit a balanced budget to congress day 1 and he has already gone into very specific detail, not in bullet points on his webpage, as to how he'd do so in interviews and articles. I sincerely doubt that he does not have a plan considering he wants to be in the national debates. And he was a two-term governor (and a financially successful one at that, 1 billion surplus when he left), so i'm sure he has at least somewhat of an idea. I dont think that, if you'd ask him, all of the budget cuts that he'd ask for would get implemented right away. But he'd certainly advocate moving that direction with that clear goal in sight.

2) He's obviously catering to the RPites, who still seem to be boneheadedly still stuck on supporting him when they could be shifting their focus to GJ, which could help massively in the polls. Right now among RPites it's RP until he dies, and then move on to GJ after the RNC.

He's a pretty far cry from Ron Paul, and it should take a lot more than "oh, look, he talks about the Fed!" to label him as another Paul. That being said, he IS from the libertarian party, so no [expletive] they're going to hold some of the same views on some issues.

Also, I've noticed this in this thread as well as other boards, but third parties seem to live up to an entirely new level of scrutiny in their own way. They may not have the media and the opposition digging into their histories, but they absolutely have to "prove" themselves in ways that most people wouldn't even think twice about when it comes to the major parties. It's quite ridiculous.