I would have thought it was obvious.
The rich, whether they hold onto their cash or reluctantly invest it, do not contribute to the welfare of average Americans in any holistic sense. Rather, they prey on them. And the only way to get them to contribute is to tax them.
You might not like my elliptic, maybe cryptic, style. But you'll have to learn to live with it.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
All you've done is repeat assertions A and C and left out B. It amounts to (A) Some have money, (C) take it from them.
But what's the relationship between A and C, how does C follow logically from A.
Nothing to do with like/dislike or any other feeling. Explain your logic, if there is any.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
Last edited by Awryly; 11-14-2012 at 12:14 AM.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
Difference is, I am not worried about where the credit goes. That is the problem with this nation. Blame and credit is overrated. Both parties have brought us here. The Republicans will be castigated no matter what happens, so actually, they have the upper hand in all matters, they are just to blind to see it. The Democrats are standing on a pillar of salt simply b/c the crash happens no matter what. Let them blame all others all they want, don't raise the debt ceiling b/c it is the right thing to do to get the government to stop spending money we don't have.
if all you people care about is blame and credit, then we are already at an end b/c that kind of bickering isn't doing anybody any good. Time to face reality.
Examples of weakness, please.I did. Just because you opine compromise strenght doesn't make it so.Weakness? Who said anything about "weakness"?
Why thank you.Spoken like a true Tea Partier.
Gringrich's weakness was to compromise and sell out Contract with America. Clinton compromised the presidency over the meaning of is.It's interesting that you equate compromise with weakness. I bet Clinton and Gingrich didn't think that in their 1997 secret pact.
No, what you said was this:As I said, your ideology makes any logical reasoning pointless.
You might not like my elliptic, maybe cryptic, style. But you'll have to learn to live with it.
Oh, yea, the three non sequitars, two of which you merely repeated. The following question remains: "But what's the relationship between A and C, how does C follow logically from A."The theme of my argument has been perfectly explained in #52.
It is when you refuse to explain yourself.That you don't get it is hardly a fault in my presentation.