:rolleye33: OK, try to understand. 1. I do not characterize drawing parallels in a discussion as being "out of context." I simply don't buy your objection. 2. If I DO wish to make an out-of-context remark, I can. It's Free Speech Alley, we can say what we want to, barring personal attacks. 3. If you want to criticise a remark, feel free . . . but it doesn't require any special response from me. I've made my point already to the guy who asked the questions and have no intention in joining some boring new topic about "how low I stoop" to make a point, "even for me".
Still avoiding. One more time. You said the constitution called for wealth equality in this nation. That the founding father's would be in favor of doing what it takes to lessen the gap between the rich and poor. Correct?
govt takeovers have occurred countless times. mostly in response to labor disputes in industries deemed too important, or during "emergencies". railroad, communications, mining, trucking, etc. the current situation isnt a war, and perhaps, isnt as dire as wwi or wwii, but its hard to argue that it isnt more serious than the korean war.
Not even close. I said neither of those things! Geez, don't make things up! Since you can't let this go, you asked for it . . . Look, LSUA said. That was a misinterpretation because I had never mentioned equality, only better balance. Got it? LSUA brought "equality" into this. He suggests that striving for equality is a detriment to the economy. I believe this to be a stretch and that equality isn't what I advocate, it's inherent in the law. So I responded: There. That is what I said. Balance--not equality. Could you possibly have missed it? That was a direct response to a comment (not even your comment!) No statement there that "the constitution called for wealth equality in this nation" or "the founding father's would be in favor of doing what it takes to lessen the gap between the rich and poor". Not even a suggestion of it--no mention of the poor. What I suggested is that we are all inherently equal under the law and thus deserve better balance among taxable incomes--the idea that I've been talking about here. A gap between the rich and the middle class should be of concern if it is widened by tax inequalities. No evasion at all. I clearly spelled out my position and explained why moderates believe in balance. It was entirely relevant to the issue. What issue are you trying to make here? What don't you understand? At long last . . . what exactly is your problem with my answer to that comment? Don't forget to add why this is "stooping low"? "Even for me".
when the national economic situation favors moving poor people out of poverty and into the middle class. get rid of sales taxes. equalize payroll taxes. provide some basic health care to all. increase the min wage. but mostly bring back the union. union strength is cyclical. theyve been down for a while. theyll come back pretty soon, then get corrupt, then go away again. but in the meantime, the bottom wages will increase.
Your position is that the constitution calls for equality/balance, whatever you want to call it in wealth distribution. That's bull and I know you're smart enough to know it. And before you argue the difference between equality and balance check this link out. http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equality I know how you like references As for stooping low, you took half of what I said and quoted it as a capitulation when it was nothing of the sort. You also twisted the meaning of the constitution to fit your argument. The "even for you" part. Well, that was to get a rise out of you....mission accomplished.
Stop trying to tell me what my position is. I just stated my position and restated it, you do not speak for me. You are just creating a straw man to argue with. Have at it, but don't expect me to defend a position that I haven't taken. A thesaurus is not a dictionary, amigo. It only invokes similar terms. Equality is inherently balanced, of course. Equilibrium exists there. But in reality there will always be richer and poorer and exact equality is a communist pipe dream. The equilibrium that I advocate also exists outside of "equality", it is established by finding the right balance point and that is what I'm saying here. This is a do-able thing. Life's a bitch, ain't it? And debate is a blood sport. I don't have to "Twist the Constitution" when I can twist my sound, yet flexible argument and your arm at the same time. You're the one with his panties in a wad here. :wink:
Don't expect me to decipher your intentions through any other means than your words. You should have clicked the link before you responded. Amazingly, I only had to click once to find a site that defined equality as balance. Thank you for that "two balls on see saw then big ball on seesaw with small ball and altered fulcrum position" illustration. It's very informative. I know you don't have to twist the constitution. As I've told you before, I'm amazed at the extent of your knowledge on seemingly all matters, that's why I didin't understand the need to twist the constitution. Act indignant like you didn't invoke the constitution as a reason for wealth equality but the fact is you did. That's not an interpretation, it was per your statement. You obviously disagree so no sense talking about it anymore. I wear leopard print thongs, they don't bundle up on me. And I assure you a pragmatic independent on a website wouldn't wad them anyway. :thumb:
So I easily demonstrated that while equality is inherently balanced, balance is not inherently equal. A picture is worth a thousand words. You weren't getting my meaning, so I tried to find another way. I am not responsible for your misinterpretations. I have explained my position in detail and that is all I owe you. Have a nice day.
