"Cutting" should be a trigger. "Cutting" implies an overall reduction in spending, for example, from the current level. Usually masks an increase in spending, but at a lesser rate than planned.

Same observation applies to the phrase "...voted to increase/decrease..."

Bob

(Now it appears you're changing the meaning of the thread with your second post)

BTW, "appears" is a trigger term...

"Wackos"
"Right Wing Wackos"
"Liberal Wackos"
"Fing Left Wing Wackos"
and my favourite... "Terrorists"

"Pork"

Some of the examples above seem to be name-calling terms. I think Lynn may be fishing for some regular, ordinary, common everyday terms that, when used by politicians, has a specific intended meaning that the audience will assume to be different from the intended meaning. Usually the intended meaning is very narrow, while the common meaning is more broad. I'll throw out one of my favorites.

"Freedom."

I think the common assumption is that this means "personal, individual freedom." "Liberty" would be a synonym. But I think some politicians (and they know who they are) simply mean "freedom from having to pay taxes." Some of those same politicians support restrictions on abortions, gay marriages, yadda yadda. So, freedom means "business freedom" or "income freedom." But not "personal freedom."

:cool:

"Reform"

:D

"Security"

"Treason"

"Right-sizing." That's a favorite.

"free-thinkers"

:cool:

"Opposition"

:D

Comparing anyone to Hitler is weak. Just because Hitler was a vegatarian or was for gun control or was supposedly "right-wing" (actually he was godless and a facist), doesn't mean there is another like him anywhere. We need a moritorium on the "is-like-Hitler" argument.

Nazi is another. You've lost the argument if you play the "is-like-a-Nazi card."

Clinton is not Hitler, neither is Hillary or W. I don't like some of the Clinton's policies, but i don't see them putting people on trains and going Holacaust. I don't see W ethnically cleansing anyone. Let's stop comparing people to Hitler.

I don't like the freewheeing use of the term racist either. It isn't racist to oppose affirmative action. It's racist to deny someone a job because of their race.

Tax cuts for the rich is a trigger term. Bound to generate heated discussions.

Hmmmmm. I don't know about that. Even if it did generate 'heated' discussions, it still made it past a Democrat-controlled Senate.

That was different. Dems cutting taxes. Guys like Gephardt and Tip O'neil getting behind that effort. Real cuts too. Serious reductions in mariginal rates. Kennedy was a big tax cutter back in the day.

:cool:

"Media bias"

:D

cmccuist, you're suggesting taht we have respectful exhanges here. Well no, you're only suggesting they be somewhat accurate and "civil." Forget about that. There are several people who patrol this forum who are not going to allow it.

I spent a year in Algeria in 1995/96 revamping an LNG plant. At the time, there were Islamic fundamentalists who were trying to disrupt the country. There actual campaign slogan was "One bomb per day until the election".

How are you going to convince anyone with that kind of extremism? My point is, when your argument ceases to be rational, you are not going to bring people around to your way of thinking. If I start my argument with "that liberal's daughter is ugly," or if I equate liberal leaders to sexual deviants, noone will listen to the rest of what i have to say.

Same thing as when liberals call conservatives racist or homophobic or stupid. It's hard for me to get with the point of view when I've got my back up.

The techweenie and Superman are supporting thier guys (Kerry and the Clintons) and I'm supporting my guys (W and Reagan). Let the Pelican with the best argument fire away. Then we can get back to something we all agree on - 911's are the perfect blend of performance and style and this thread is worthless w/o pics of hotties.

Craig

:cool:

"Hotties"

:D

Indeed. As I may have mentioned, the typical "Logic" class at a university will train the students (at least the ones who are paying attention) to identify what's called the informal fallacies. These are arguments that hook some people, but which have limited logical value. Often the way students are trained to identify these, is by reviewing a series of actual arguments, presidential debates, whatever, and strike through those arguments that are not logically compelling. It's striking the small amount of compelling argument that remains. When I took the class (several centuries ago), the arguments reviewed were contained in a series of letters back and forth between a women's libber and a catholic priest.

So, even when the backstabbing and name-calling and vitriol is not present, the arguments may or may not be sound. When you add the name-calling, whatever actual rational argument you could have had is probably discredited. One of my favorite remarks is "All generalizations are false." I also find that the most common correct answer is "It depends." So, when a poster seems circumspect, finding truth in various other posters' offerings, I tend to respect that guy. When a poster seems to be assuming that an entire group of other posters is FOS with nothing whatsoever of relevance to contribute, I should just use my "ignore" button since that poster is not the one I am here to engage. It's a credibility thing. Life is short. I want to have a real discussion about public policy. I can get that elsewhere, but what saddens me the most is the wonderful sense of community I have enjoyed here over the years. That very possibly is going away now.

"Billions" - as in the budget. Sounds big, but we could use a rule to have all proposed Bills in Congress speak only in terms of % of annual budget so we'd all know if we should be worried or not.