On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:47:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:37:23 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

Could be. I simply thought you would figure it out. I was wrong. Won't
the last time.

So, opinions are influenced by the media, except for your opinion.
You're too smart for all that. Right?


Now did I say that? Let me check.....nope.

So you read the media, and most people favor the "Buffet rule" because
they're influenced by the media, but you're smart enough not to let
that influence you -- but you say that isn't the case.

People come up with some interesting explanations for why most other
people disagree with them. It usually has something to do with them
being too dumb to get it, or two weak to resist an appeal to their
greed, ego, or whatever.

You seem to have an exceptional resistance of some kind.

He's a textbook case of somebody who dishes out his opinion and then
twists himself into a pretzel trying to justify it. There's no there
there and that's based on him pumping out one slippery response after
another to simple pointed questions. Keep pumping him if you enjoy
that but the well is dry.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:57:02 -0700, whoyakidding
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:47:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:37:23 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

Could be. I simply thought you would figure it out. I was wrong. Won't
the last time.

So, opinions are influenced by the media, except for your opinion.
You're too smart for all that. Right?


Now did I say that? Let me check.....nope.

So you read the media, and most people favor the "Buffet rule" because
they're influenced by the media, but you're smart enough not to let
that influence you -- but you say that isn't the case.

People come up with some interesting explanations for why most other
people disagree with them. It usually has something to do with them
being too dumb to get it, or two weak to resist an appeal to their
greed, ego, or whatever.

You seem to have an exceptional resistance of some kind.

He's a textbook case of somebody who dishes out his opinion and then
twists himself into a pretzel trying to justify it. There's no there
there and that's based on him pumping out one slippery response after
another to simple pointed questions. Keep pumping him if you enjoy
that but the well is dry.

I can't agree with you about that. RD generally is very reasonable,
and not an ideologue.

We just disagree about a lot of things. In this case, he has a mental
picture of what people on the other side of the issue are like, and
what their thinking is that lies behind their positions, and I don't
think he's right.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:29:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:57:02 -0700, whoyakidding
wrote:

He's a textbook case of somebody who dishes out his opinion and then
twists himself into a pretzel trying to justify it. There's no there
there and that's based on him pumping out one slippery response after
another to simple pointed questions. Keep pumping him if you enjoy
that but the well is dry.

I can't agree with you about that. RD generally is very reasonable,

It's not reasonable for him to duck simple questions. For a second I
did think he could do better but then reality set in.

and not an ideologue.

I'll take your word on that because I only know him from a few
exchanges but I think you may be wearing rose colored glasses.

On 4/14/2012 4:57 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:47:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:37:23 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed wrote in
:


screaming snipped


perhaps if you screaming people would realize that the rule relates to
fairness, not revenue, you might understand. Of course we can raise
more revenue by taxing poor people and letting them starve - there are
more of them. But for those of us with morals we find this abhorrent


--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:29:18 -0700, a friend
wrote:

On 4/14/2012 4:57 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:47:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:37:23 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed wrote in
:


screaming snipped


perhaps if you screaming people would realize that the rule relates to
fairness, not revenue, you might understand.

Perhaps if you read the thread you'd realize that fairness and revenue
both were thoroughly discussed.

--
Ed Huntress

Of course we can raise
more revenue by taxing poor people and letting them starve - there are
more of them. But for those of us with morals we find this abhorrent