"engaging in some tongue-in-cheek, one upmanship, juvenile banter."
difficult to do with short posts unless you know the poster well. There is no body language or facial expression to use as indicators. Best leave that for personal contact.
MR. X. I have and out here.
it on a Sch. watch list. I will try again.
if i offended you i'm truly sorry. it was not my intention, as i value your posts. i was just engaging in some tongue-in-cheek, one upmanship, juvenile banter.
General Wesley Clark for President!
Silent. Again you make not only a leap of logic but also a false assumption. I am a conservative first and a republican second. I would like to be a libertarian but they have no chance. So I take the next best thing. Your error is in believing that republicans have a corner on the corporate welfare market. not so. Dems are equally guilty.
Good grief, man. You implicitly approve of corporate welfare simply by BEING a Republican. The hallmark of the modern Republican Party is it's support of big business through legislation and deregulation. It historically DEFINES the party, and this administration takes it to new and dizzying heights. If you're Republican, you support corporate welfare, be it in payment form, or legislative form, or deregulative form. It's ALL the same - corporate welfare.
Let me try once more - I'll make it a mathmatical equation:
a = Oldbold has stated his status as conservative Republican
b = Republicans and Bush have conceded, to the great benefit of business interests, laws on environment, trade, taxes and economic policy
c = Oldbold has stated disapproval of any and all corporate welfare from government.
Now tell me how a+b somehow equals c?
Bottom line - You say you're Republican, but you tout a viewpoint more aligned with Libertarian. As I said earlier, be consistent.
My response was that concessions on environment, trade, and tax laws come straight from our government, and if that isn't welfare in your eyes, you have a mighty narrow definition of it.
Finally, you have pissed me off. Your response is exactly what I am saying. Are you dislexic or something? Are your eyeballs crossed with your anal nerve? No welfare for any purpose. How does "opposed to any and all corp. welfare" equate to approving it?
"I am opposed to any and all corporate welfare. Business must stand on its own feet, to live or die by its own efforts. "
This, your statement, tells me that you do not believe businesses should get any breaks from the government. My response was that concessions on environment, trade, and tax laws come straight from our government, and if that isn't welfare in your eyes, you have a mighty narrow definition of it. Corporate lobbyists are the little piglets clamoring for the government's teat. The fairy tale that ANY business is living or dying by it's own merits in this country is patently absurd.
Please tell me how you got from what I said to what you said? What twisted path of logic did you use? I said there should be no welfare of any kind. You can shoot the damn lobbiests for all I care.