Quote:
Originally Posted by example1
Read the speech.
|
I've read the speech, and this right here, along with select examples I'll highlight, is the reason I refuse to continue discourse with you any further. You will not refrain from assuming (a) that your position is more informed and (b) that you have some insight into my thoughts and can assign intent to what I've posted. I don't think you do it intentionally, but that doesn't make it any more agreeable. I'm out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by e1
I forget, what do you propose instead? I remember you singing the praises of reaganomics until JHB jumped in to talk about how very few gains have been made by anyone below the top 10% of earners or so...
|
I've not redacted my support of lower taxes and their impact on economic growth (for everyone). Again, assumption on your part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by e1
You attempted to undermine the quality of his character ...
|
Assumption. It was an honest question. At the time I asked it, I had not been aware that the previous article I'd read had been corrected. I even redacted that comment once I found out it the truth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by e1
Like he says, you can retreat to your corner and call it the views of a completely wacked out person representing the general feeling of nobody, or you can try to integrate his view as an alienated and extremist, but REAL view. It's our country man, why do we have to be so adversarial?
|
And that's where I disagree with him. There's another option, one that I'd call the most presidential. That option is to confront the problem head on. Confront the minister / pastor / senator / other head of state (see the importance here) about such insane views. Attempt to get them to see the light. If they fail, then marginalize them. They have no place in the future. He proposes to keep the source of those thoughts part of the dialogue. Unacceptable.