It isn't that I don't want to pay any taxes, because that isn't realistic at all. I've never said I wanted to pay no taxes at all. Don't misquote. I have been arguing for tax breaks for everyone. To pay LESS taxes. There is a huge difference.
and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
yeah... the people.
who spend
responsibly.
Wait.. are you saying that you are going to judge another individual's ability to spend responsibly? Wouldn't that be interfering with his rights?
no. i am judging the GOVERNMENTS ability to spend responsibly. people will make the decisions on what they spend themselves. they will spend what is best for THEM not the government. the way it should be
and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
yeah... the people.
who spend
responsibly.
Wait.. are you saying that you are going to judge another individual's ability to spend responsibly? Wouldn't that be interfering with his rights?
no. i am judging the GOVERNMENTS ability to spend responsibly. people will make the decisions on what they spend themselves. they will spend what is best for THEM not the government. the way it should be
So who's gonna build and maintain the road that you drive on to get to work? Should that be privately funded? If Applebees wants to hire somebody else to run the restaurant, do they need to include the cost of building a road from that guy's house? What if that guy decides to move? Does he have to include the cost of building a road from his new house to his employer?
(and we still cant PROVE 100% that global warming is man made, no matter how many times Al gore says it is)
OK, so in one thread, you now proclaim to know more about the economy than the economists, and more about the environment than the scientists. Proven? No. But the majority believe it exists and is man-made. Until I hear otherwise, I'll rely on their judgment.
IOW, arguments composed entirely of extremes will always fail?
... not always
Obviously... because that would be an extreme argument in itself... by succeeding, it would be invalid... so it could never be true.. now there's an extreme argument that does not fail
The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
Comments