Replies

I would suggest you both tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole.

We have a hard enough time fighting with socialists and liberals among us. To turn on each other for over the perfect method or approach to restoring constitutionally constrained government with accountability to the individual is insanity, and accomplishes more for the status quo proponents and socialists than it provides toward finding solutions, for the real problems in front of us.

I would suggest you both cool off for abit and approach your issues with abit less heat and more clearity of the reason instead of blinding emotional attachment to your own particular personal views.

I would suggest you both tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole.

I will expose a person's intent to deceive readers where I find it, thank you very much. See post 904.

I would suggest you both cool off for abit and approach your issues with abit less heat and more clearity of the reason instead of blinding emotional attachment to your own particular personal views.

I will not cater to a person that has been exposed for their intent to deceive. That's an honest principle. If you want to compromise honest principle that's your choice. Just as it is each person's choice of whether to vote for the lesser of evils that always begets evil. You do your thing, I'll do mine. Know this, I will not cater to those that are dishonest. Seldom will I cater to a person that chooses to cater to persons that are dishonest, especially when they ask me to compromise honest principles.

I would suggest you both tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole

I'll gladly tone down the rhetoric (I'm not the one who stopped arguing the facts and changed to personal assaults; I just replied in kind), but not the "hyperbole" as you claim, since I'm not using hyperbole. The system as proposed really is as bad as I am claiming. A government handout to every household in the United States really is socialism, and that is exactly what the "prebate" system proposes. And since that value is based on a calculation whose principle component (the poverty level) is subject to change at will by a bureaucrat with no action required by any elected government entity, the value of those payouts can vary at will.

In other words, the system as proposed is fundamentally flawed, unless both socialism and the capacity for a conversion of the economy to communism are not seen as flaws. Personally, I see both of those facts as very significant flaws.

I would suggest you both tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole

And I would suggest that when you have a disagreement with someone's argument, you base your rebuttal of that argument on facts or rational argument rather than making claims of "tinfoil" like you did in post 917.