Quote:
Originally Posted by kstarnes
So news articles are the criteria of an argument? Seriously, Kang?
To Rick's post:
Looks like BO is stretching things a bit, eh? How about the 95% who "will get a tax cut" which actually means 95% of the 60% who pay taxes will get an "income tax cut". If any of the 95% of the 60% sell a home or investment for a profit, they will also pay more in cap gains taxes under BO. This is not a tax cut.
If anything, this thread has pointed out the ability of both sides to "game" the voting block . . . and the murkiness of "the truth". 
BTW, which bureaucrats decide what "age appropriate" means? Age appropriate is not an objective, defined term. More reason to keep the government out of this stuff and figure out a way to motivate parents to take responsibility for their own kids, which is not an easy and maybe an impossible task. |
No, of course news articles are not the single criteria of an argument. I didn’t say that, and by implying that, you are warping the intent of my post.
There are two sides to this argument. One side has a McCain ad and some out of context quotes. The other side has some in depth and complete analyses of the issue.
I’d just like to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Comparing a McCain ad and some out of context quotes to an in depth news article is not doing that.