On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined.

Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing
"unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it.


Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal.

No, it doesn't.


If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 =
1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair.

It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.


The problem
with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to
support your assumption.
The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the
assumption even in the face of contrary evidence.

Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything
I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.


If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where
you got it from.

No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him.


I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
I'm a political junky.

You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to
undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real
politics.


You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.

Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he
pretends to know.