Let's just say it: the Republicans are the problem

[nathanm]

OK, tell me what was new.  All I saw was the same old liberal dogma.

I doubt that me reading the article to you will make much of a difference.

Edited to add: Let's be more constructive. Do you think that there are public goods that need to be funded without regard to the preference of any given individual, like defense, transportation, courts, a post office, and the like?

[Red Arrow]

I doubt that me reading the article to you will make much of a difference.

And I doubt that me reading it to you would make a difference either.  

Edited to add: Let's be more constructive. Do you think that there are public goods that need to be funded without regard to the preference of any given individual, like defense, transportation, courts, a post office, and the like?

Typical liberal question.  Ask if someone supports things at a high enough level that it would be impossible to say no.  The trick is in the details, the level of support and what's included in "and the like".

[Hoss]

And I doubt that me reading it to you would make a difference either.  

Typical liberal question.  Ask if someone supports things at a high enough level that it would be impossible to say no.  The trick is in the details, the level of support and what's included in "and the like".

Then I could come back and say 'typical conservative answer: take the question and present it as if it was a trick question, thus victimizing the person being asked the question'.

You see how this works now?

[Red Arrow]

Then I could come back and say 'typical conservative answer: take the question and present it as if it was a trick question, thus victimizing the person being asked the question'.

You see how this works now?

No, explain it to me.  Try not to talk down to me too much.  I only understand words with one or two syllables.

[nathanm]

Typical liberal question.  Ask if someone supports things at a high enough level that it would be impossible to say no.  The trick is in the details, the level of support and what's included in "and the like".

It's not a trick question. There are those that believe that the government shouldn't do some or all of those things I enumerated. If you are of that persuasion, there's no point in continuing the discussion, hence the question. If the answer is indeed yes, do you think that the government should have the power to compel people to pay taxes to fund those activities, or should it rely on donations?

[Red Arrow]

Then I could come back and say 'typical conservative answer: take the question and present it as if it was a trick question, thus victimizing the person being asked the question'.

I never said it was a trick question.  If you ask almost anyone in this country if they want to deny medical attention to someone bleeding profusely at the emergency room, even conservatives will say no.  If you ask them if we should abolish the Military,  almost no one would say no.  Ask them if we should have a Military big enough to invade poor defenseless countries in the Middle East and you will get a conversation going.  Ask people if they want to starve children.  Almost no one will say no.  Ask if they want to feed those kids Kansas City Steaks (probably from Oklahoma cattle) and many will say no, USDA Choice is good enough.  There is always a line of willing support and that is where the differences are among us.

[Hoss]

No, explain it to me.  Try not to talk down to me too much.  I only understand words with one or two syllables.

Then I don't believe you're as moderate as you have said you are in the past.

There's been a lot of name calling on both sides this cycle.  I for one am sick of it.  Liberals treat being called liberals as a dirty word, so conservatives use it in that context.  And don't throw what the tea party gets referred to as out there.  They penned the name themselves.  Something about making your own bed applies there.  I for one abhor using the term.

That's not to say I don't snicker when someone else uses it though.

Both sides of the aisle are dysfunctional.

And this state has pretty much gone in the crapper with some of the Mensas in the state house down the pike.

[Hoss]

I never said it was a trick question.  If you ask almost anyone in this country if they want to deny medical attention to someone bleeding profusely at the emergency room, even conservatives will say no.  If you ask them if we should abolish the Military,  almost no one would say no.  Ask them if we should have a Military big enough to invade poor defenseless countries in the Middle East and you will get a conversation going.  Ask people if they want to starve children.  Almost no one will say no.  Ask if they want to feed those kids Kansas City Steaks (probably from Oklahoma cattle) and many will say no, USDA Choice is good enough.  There is always a line of willing support and that is where the differences are among us.

See?  How difficult was that?  Sometimes you treat the person asking the simplest of questions like it's a crime to ask it.

[Red Arrow]

Then I don't believe you're as moderate as you have said you are in the past.

There's been a lot of name calling on both sides this cycle.  I for one am sick of it.  Liberals treat being called liberals as a dirty word, so conservatives use it in that context.  And don't throw what the tea party gets referred to as out there.  They penned the name themselves.  Something about making your own bed applies there.  I for one abhor using the term.

That's not to say I don't snicker when someone else uses it though.

Both sides of the aisle are dysfunctional.

And this state has pretty much gone in the crapper with some of the Mensas in the state house down the pike.

I don't believe you fell for that response.  We disagree a lot but I thought you are sharper than that.  You were a bit too quick on the defensive.  See my serious answer to your same post.

[Red Arrow]

It's not a trick question. There are those that believe that the government shouldn't do some or all of those things I enumerated. If you are of that persuasion, there's no point in continuing the discussion, hence the question. If the answer is indeed yes, do you think that the government should have the power to compel people to pay taxes to fund those activities, or should it rely on donations?

There are basic activities that government should/must provide.  Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens.  Simple so far.  Now we get to the more nitty-gritty.  Should some get these services free?  Who are they?  What level of support is "fair".  Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects?  I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth.  Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me.   Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met. 

[Hoss]

I don't believe you fell for that response.  We disagree a lot but I thought you are sharper than that.  You were a bit too quick on the defensive.  See my serious answer to your same post.

I didn't miss it and I wasn't quick on the defensive.  Retorts like that aren't constructive to the process.  It sounds just like what someone in Washington might say.  Hence my response.

When it comes to serious subjects I try and say serious.  I knew exactly what you were doing.  Politicians do it all the time.  The quick soundbite is what it's called.

But, whatever.

[Hoss]

There are basic activities that government should/must provide.  Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens.  Simple so far.  Now we get to the more nitty-gritty.  Should some get these services free?  Who are they?  What level of support is "fair".  Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects?  I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth.  Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me.   Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met. 

So what might happen once those accountability measures are met?  You think he would piss and moan about having to pay higher taxes?  I bet he would.  Maybe not publicly.  If he was smart, that is.

[Red Arrow]

Liberals treat being called liberals as a dirty word, so conservatives use it in that context.  

I don't understand why Liberals treat being called liberal as a dirty word unless they are secretly ashamed of being liberal.  Certainly Conservatives use it in that context because it does bother Liberals.  Liberals try to do the same thing to Conservatives but have not been as successful.  There are a lot of possible explanations for that depending on whether you are Liberal or Conservative.

[Red Arrow]

I didn't miss it and I wasn't quick on the defensive.  Retorts like that aren't constructive to the process.  It sounds just like what someone in Washington might say.  Hence my response.

When it comes to serious subjects I try and say serious.  I knew exactly what you were doing.  Politicians do it all the time.  The quick soundbite is what it's called.

But, whatever.

Nice try.

[Hoss]

Nice try.

Guess what RA; I really do not need any of the members of this forum's affirmation of what I think.  I try not to involve myself too much into the meat of the political postings for just reason.

Nice try back at ya...