Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Wisconsin State Assemblyman Robin Vos lets us all know what he thinks of those taxpaying Wisconsin citizens who work in the public sector:

The reality is they haven’t had to pay for these things, they’re upset about doing it now, and the taxpayers are the ones who definitely understand this because they get it, they’ve been doing this in the private sector for years, it’s time we had the same thing happen in the public sector…The fact that my Democratic colleagues want to go back to the taxpayer and have them pay higher taxes because someone shouldn’t pay 12% towards their healthcare….We are standing with the taxpayers all across Wisconsin. It’s amazing the outpouring of support that we’ve been getting from the people outside the Capitol Square, the people who are in the reality of the world, not the place that we’re sitting.

Howard Dean does a very good job of refuting Kudlow and Vos’ fiction that the demonstrations are all about the cuts in benefits and not about the elimination of collective bargaining. The capper to this exchange, however, comes near the end of the segment, when a sign appears just over Vos’ shoulder on the right. Not the kind of thing Kudlow could choreograph.

It beautifully highlights the idiocy of Vos' fiction that the demonstrators are, in some fundamental way, less American than other Americans. Does he really think cops and teachers don't pay taxes, or “live in the reality of the world?”

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*

Comments

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Uh huh. Whatever. I think you debate dishonestly and disingenuously and that's all that needs to be said.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If you say so. Whereas I would say that you just misunderstood the issue and ran with that, and you have too much of an ego to accept it.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

No, what I mean is that I think and believe you actively lie and deceive. And that you do so deliberately. I think you already knew the information and are pretending you didn't and I think you do that in the majority of the situations where you go "citation needed". Is that direct and blunt enough for you?

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Sure, and I'll directly tell you that you're wrong. I don't lie on here, ever. The worst you can say is that sometimes when I ask for a citation I do already know that their information is wrong, but I want them to show where they got their information from so that I can refute it.

Also, you're showing some odd kind of illogic by tying asking for a citation for a claim to some kind of assumption of nefariousness by knowing information already. I don't even know how to express how silly your thinking is there.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Sure, and I'll directly tell you that you're wrong. I don't lie on here, ever.

This isn't going to convince me your aren't lying. So I would stop.

Also, you're showing some odd kind of illogic by tying asking for a citation for a claim to some kind of assumption of nefariousness by knowing information already. I don't even know how to express how silly your thinking is there.

Standard dishonest debate tactic, used continuously to cause the opposite party to tire of having to constantly provide a thesis for every sentence made and get them to drop the debate, therefore 'winning'.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The dishonest debate tactic doesn't require knowledge of what's being asked about. Also, I haven't done that. Asking for a citation once for an obscure claim is not that. I don't believe I've ever asked for a citation more than twice (and I don't think I did even that more than once) in a single discussion, and every time it was in response to an outlandish claim that was not common knowledge and therefore I needed to see some source for it.