Now, look at real T.E.A. parties

[72o]

I always thought this picture was cool.

The circles are sized based on that item's share of the federal government's discretionary spending budget. This was 2004 figures, so not current, but still interesting.

Click image to enlarge.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah, well, thanks for the new stuff. I'll look into that.

[thegreekdog]

He could also be making an observation on the fact that ,despite your continued claims to the contrary, you almost always argue from the conservative standpoint.

On economics. On social issues, I almost always argue from the liberal standpoint.

[thegreekdog]

Oh nice, greek! Pointing out people's minor errors in grammar have NOTHING to do with the argument at hand is totally talking about the person and not the issue. But it's such a relief that one as fair and balanced as you wouldn't stoop as low as mocking someone's grammar to try to make them look bad... oh wait.

Yes, right... and? Not sure what you're getting at here buddy. Hard to argue with aradhus when he doesn't make an argument.

HAHAHA, what do you think your entire response was greek?? It was arguing Arad. Instead of responding to the topic at hand, or even the topic Arad brought up (and he did bring up a valid topic), among other things you simply call him a troll and make fun of his spelling. What if he weren't just trying to get a rise out of you, but to get you to either accept that you hold very similar views to Republicans (given the posts you've been making in this thread) or at least argue it and give reasoning (you know, a debate)? Instead all you said was essentially "STFU TROLL." Oh you're a master of intelligent debate, good sir.

What was his valid topic? Maybe you should go back and read his post again. It appears to me that he was trolling and trying to get a rise out of me (which, admittedly, he succeeded in doing). You pretty much admit to this in your first few sentences. Here they are, in case you forgot:

HAHAHAHA, looks like you hit a little close to home Arad.

It's not like he was asserting you were WRONG because of the views you apparently hold. He was noting the disconnect between what you say you are and what you show yourself to be. I'm not sure what he said can even be implied to be arguing, especially about the topic at hand of health care (which is even off topic to begin with).

I show myself to be a Libertarian. Part of being a Libetarian is arguing against things like universal health insurance. There is no disconnect between my arguments and what I show myself to be. In any event, he wasn't noting that at all. If he was noting that, he'd pull out the Libertarian platform and try to figure out where it says universal health insurance is necessary and then say I was being a hypocrit. I don't like being called a racist or being labelled something that I'm not, which is why ardahus' post was particularly ridiculous.

Nice. Way to be the bigger man in the end. Seriously though, I'm losing a lot respect for you...

You espouse intelligent debate, but then throw out a bunch of mocking and rhetorical talking points.

You espouse not attacking a person in debate, and then resort to the same "b.s." that you complain about (oh and by the way, you almost exclusively complain about this when liberals do it, everyone has seen it).

Lastly and worst of all, you espouse your intellectual purity when it comes to all of this, but then you show yourself to be quite the hypocrite. I'll admit that sometimes I am intellectually dishonest and partial towards people who share my view, even though I try not to be. Will you?

I refuse to argue with people who refuse to argue with me. I refuse to respect people who, instead of arguing with me, decide that it would be a good idea to give me shit for no reason other than either they don't like my point of view or can't argue against my point of view. I mock because he mocks. Not sure where I posted rhetoric. I complain about liberals, but only three (Sultan, ardhus, and teletubby) because they don't make arguments, they type up posts that are meant to make fun of the person they are replying to. That's not intellectual curiosity or debate. Therefore, I don't feel it's my responsibility to be intellectually honest with respect to these people. When people are intellectually honest with me (I can name many, including pimpdave, Snorri, Woodruff, Player, gottonkaed), I can be intellectually honest with them. Further, I do call out conservatives when I disagree or when they are being ridiculous. I have done this with phatscotty and GabonX before, and I'll likely do it again. I suspect that you have not read many of my posts. I also suspect that you have not read many of aradhus' replies to me in other threads. Perhaps you should read some more threads before you criticize me for being hypocritical and/or intellectually dishonest (although, admittedly, I was likely the latter in the post to aradhus).

In sum, until ardahus or the teletubster decide to debate on the merits (like most others do), I will continue to treat them with intellectual dishonesty and disrespect. Sultan is funny and intelligent, so I make an exception for him (generally).

Finally, you note that Aradhus uses stereotypes and tropes in his post. Yet you apparently have lost respect for me and have chosen to defend him. I find this particularly disturbing. Therefore, based on your post in response to my response to Aradhus, in which you indicate that you have lost respect for me, I have to conclude that I don't really care if you've lost respect for me. Because if your first notion is to defend Aradhus, I'm not sure I really want your respect.

[2dimes]

I always thought this picture was cool.

The circles are sized based on that item's share of the federal government's discretionary spending budget. This was 2004 figures, so not current, but still interesting.

Click image to enlarge.

That's awesome. It should have been updated every year for comparison. I love how it shows what a bargain NASA is, in an easy to see format.

[john9blue]

I always thought this picture was cool.

The circles are sized based on that item's share of the federal government's discretionary spending budget. This was 2004 figures, so not current, but still interesting.

Click image to enlarge.

mibi created that.

[mibi]

I always thought this picture was cool.

The circles are sized based on that item's share of the federal government's discretionary spending budget. This was 2004 figures, so not current, but still interesting.

Click image to enlarge.

mibi created that.

yeah its 5 years old!

Try the 2010 version.

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/