taxes

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Somebody will no doubt get a railroad tie mansion! There are a myriad of artificial supports for current food prices as well as the basic issues of the transportation infrastructure. It is truly sad how some people entertain this fantasy of self-sufficiency despite all evidence to the contrary - pigheadedly ignorant not only of the current state of their ...[text shortened]... g collapses from this neglect.

And BTW, genius, "running it" doesn't put it on your table.

there is a big difference between saying infrastructure allows the transport of goods and implying you get those goods from the govt (which is what your question implied).

Originally posted by generalissimo
there is a big difference between saying infrastructure allows the transport of goods and implying you get those goods from the govt (which is what your question implied).

I don't know where you read that but it was certainly in nothing I wrote. But quiz me this - if the government does not provide the subsidies (to more than just the farm conglomerate) and it doesn't build the road then how do you get it? I don't see much difference. I'll freely admit that there is a "difference" but where is the "big difference?" Explain it, please. Don't just say, "I am correct because I said you are wrong." I've offered an argument. Do you have one?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I don't know where you read that but it was certainly in nothing I wrote. But quiz me this - if the government does not provide the subsidies (to more than just the farm conglomerate) and it doesn't build the road then how do you get it? I don't see much difference. I'll freely admit that there is a "difference" but where is the "big difference?" Explain ...[text shortened]... m correct because I said you are wrong." I've offered an argument. Do you have one?

I don't know where you read that but it was certainly in nothing I wrote
Originally posted by TerrierJack
"So where do you get your salad, meat, bread, gas, and water? Still sucking from the public services or do you have private sources?"


But quiz me this - if the government does not provide the subsidies (to more than just the farm conglomerate) and it doesn't build the road then how do you get it? I don't see much difference.

In theory you could still get them, it would be a longer process, but certainly not impossible. I understand the fact that the government facilitates this process in a number of ways, and that in reality most people are somewhat dependent on the government because of this, but its really not the same as having the government directly providing individuals with their "salad, meat, and bread".

I'll freely admit that there is a "difference" but where is the "big difference?"

now you're just playing semantics, regardless of whether it is a " small difference" or a "big difference", we can agree there is a "difference". There is no need to make a big deal out of it.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[I don't know where you read that but it was certainly in nothing I wrote
Originally posted by TerrierJack
"So where do you get your salad, meat, bread, gas, and water? Still sucking from the public services or do you have private sources?"

But quiz me this - if the government does not provide the subsidies (to more than just the agree there is a "difference". There is no need to make a big deal out of it.

So you quote with with no explication. That is NOT an argument.

What about that first statement indicated that I was saying that the government grew the food? (Which I suppose is what you are getting at altho I can't be sure of that because you aren't providing enough information to really understand what you are saying.)

Whether it is a "difference" at all is the point I was making. I was not arguing about degrees of difference. You are the one who introduced that concept when it was clear that my point was unassailable.

Please go read a little about American history. Try the "Erie Canal" - it was one of the original public works to be debated. In both parties at the time there were those who opposed it and those who championed it. In both parties the champions won - only one party continued to exist. The issue was decided and from that point on the government (for the good of the people) has offered support for business in America. I'm not (on this thread) arguing for or against but to close your eyes and try pretend that that is not our current condition is silly. We have to face the world as it is and not make up fantasies to support our biases.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So you quote with with no explication. That is NOT an argument.

What about that first statement indicated that I was saying that the government grew the food? (Which I suppose is what you are getting at altho I can't be sure of that because you aren't providing enough information to really understand what you are saying.)

Whether it is a "differenc ...[text shortened]... illy. We have to face the world as it is and not make up fantasies to support our biases.

So you quote with with no explication. That is NOT an argument.

How can I possibly make it clearer? Just try thinking for once, and you'll see how your question implied public services provided individuals with "meat, bread, and salad".

What about that first statement indicated that I was saying that the government grew the food?

I want an actual quote.

I can't be sure of that because you aren't providing enough information to really understand what you are saying.)

well, Im sorry if you're incapable of keeping up with the debate, but at least make an effort, its not as hard as it looks.

Whether it is a "difference" at all is the point I was making. I was not arguing about degrees of difference. You are the one who introduced that concept when it was clear that my point was unassailable.

fine, perhaps it was a bad choice of words, but still, you get the point, there really is no need to make a big deal out of it, unless of course you want to make it very clear that you're arguing about trivial things just to make others look bad.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So you quote with with no explication. That is NOT an argument.

What about that first statement indicated that I was saying that the government grew the food? (Which I suppose is what you are getting at altho I can't be sure of that because you aren't providing enough information to really understand what you are saying.)

Whether it is a "differenc ...[text shortened]... illy. We have to face the world as it is and not make up fantasies to support our biases.

I'm not (on this thread) arguing for or against but to close your eyes and try pretend that that is not our current condition is silly. We have to face the world as it is and not make up fantasies to support our biases.

what makes you think I "closed my eyes" to this?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
It sounds like to me you are the one who is consistently dishonest. I cannot count the number of times I have directed queries your way only to have you respond with insults that never addressed the question. It appears that your power to reason is severely limited but your ability to manufacture distractions to hide that deficiency is infinite.

Telling people to go and live in Somalia is an inquiry?

I'll have to guess at your inference, let's see, anyone that advocates downsizing guvamint doesn't realise that any claw back of freedom will send any country that does follow that line to go into a Somalia spiral. oakaaaayyyyyyyy

Originally posted by Wajoma
Telling people to go and live in Somalia is an inquiry?

I'll have to guess at your inference, let's see, anyone that advocates downsizing guvamint doesn't realise that any claw back of freedom will send any country that does follow that line to go into a Somalia spiral. oakaaaayyyyyyyy

Do you think Somalia was planned or advocated?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Do you think Somalia was planned or advocated?

I don't doubt that there are those who have planned the collapse.

Your point?

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't doubt that there are those who have planned the collapse.

Your point?

Seriously, that is your argument? Yes, it was planned and advocated? Pull your own appendage - I've heard enough.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Seriously, that is your argument? Yes, it was planned and advocated? Pull your own appendage - I've heard enough.

I'm not the one making an 'argument'.

You're the one, Somalia, Somalia, Somalia. You can't explain?

Did no one plan the overthrow of whatever type of guvamint existed in Somalia? It just happened? Is that your point?