The Scourge of America with Integrity (On Topic Only Please)

[Integrity]

Your premise is childish. You ignore what implementing your idea would entail, only that wishful thinking would suffice. Until you fill in the blanks, your suggestion is nothing more than crayon rainbows.

It is fake idea. Never said it wasn’t.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Yes
To remove what is IMO the scourge of American Society.
Yes.
Not to me.

Interesting well, I don’t think it’s a scourge. And I don’t think you can fight greed by being greedy and jealous and envious but that’s me.

 

[Integrity]

Why wouldn't you give direct answers?

When I can I do.

Straw-man tactics are IMO often a waste of time. With amount of time I spend on the BC Lord knows I do enough of that on my own.

 

[Integrity]

The premise as I understand it is you believe those who make a lot of money have undue influence over how the country operates. That if you take away a lot more of their money you could not only greatly reduce their influence but also take away the tax burden of millions of Americans.

Have you considered that your plan would make the country extremely dependent on the rich continuing to make a lot of money so that you can continue to fund current entitlements? We are talking a lot of money. If you de incentivize them then what incentive do they have to continue to produce that much income? And this is assuming they could pay that much to begin with. I don't think you've thought this through nor do you understand how our system works.

You understand the premise incorrectly.
No, nor do I care to.
None, I hope.
Oh well.

 

[BrownFlush]

It is fake idea.

I wasn't until you got a bunch of flack.

 

[Integrity]

Interesting well, I don’t think it’s a scourge. And I don’t think you can fight greed by being greedy and jealous and envious but that’s me.

I do.
I 100% agree with sentence 2 of your reply.

 

[Integrity]

I wasn't until you got a bunch of flack.

I don’t see it that way.

You don’t think I suspected some flack.

 

[BrownFlush]

Why wouldn't you give direct answers?

He will.
But, no matter the subject, it takes about 20 pages and you have to really bare down to get one.

 

[Integrity]

He will.
But, no matter the subject, it takes about 20 pages and you have to really bear down to get one.

IMO some questions just don’t deserve an answer.

 

[BrownFlush]

IMO some questions just don’t deserve an answer.

Especially ones when you don't like the answer.

 

[Integrity]

Especially ones when you don't like the answer.

There is no answer when the question is unanswered, you do get that. No?

 

[BrownFlush]

There is no answer when the question is unanswered, you do get that. No?

I get it.
Just bull st.

 

[vantexan]

You understand the premise incorrectly.
No, nor do I care to.
None, I hope.
Oh well.

I'm pretty certain I repeated what you originally stated. Care to tell me what I got wrong?

And oh well? You don't care how badly it turns out as long as you get your way. Because you believe that deep down you're always right. That's why you don't care to defend your position because you don't want to hear anything that suggests you are wrong.

 

[qdg2]

When I can I do.

Straw-man tactics are IMO often a waste of time. With amount of time I spend on the BC Lord knows I do enough of that on my own.

When I can?

Indirect answers are by definition.....deceitful.........which also means dishonest. Eh......INTEGRITY?

 

[Integrity]

I get it.
Just bull st.

Sorry you see it that way.

 

[Integrity]

I'm pretty certain I repeated what you originally stated. Care to tell me what I got wrong?

And oh well? You don't care how badly it turns out as long as you get your way. Because you believe that deep down you're always right. That's why you don't care to defend your position because you don't want to hear anything that suggests you are wrong.

No I do not care to, if you want to look at the original post and you have any direct questions about what is actually stated in it. I will consider questions of this nature.

No of what you stated in your second paragraph is true therefore I cannot entertain it further due to time limitations that I currently have.

 

[qdg2]

Sorry you see it that way.

I don't see it that way. I believe you honestly and directly stated your communistic/socialist/liberal views. Fake idea(as you call it). Nothing fake about communists in America. The Democrat Party is their home. Small but there. Unfortunately, the Presidency and Senate are being led by them. Your taxation plan has numerous Bills just waiting for a majority to pass. Oh yes.

 

[Integrity]

When I can?

Indirect answers are by definition.....deceitful.........which also means dishonest. Eh......INTEGRITY?

Yes. When I can.

Yes that may be true but IMO indirect questions that amount to attempts at utilizing a straw man fallacy as a means of responding to post is IMO the “Scourge of the BC”.

Where is the integrity in that?

 

[Integrity]

I don't see it that way. I believe you honestly and directly stated your communistic/socialist/liberal views. Fake idea(as you call it). Nothing fake about communists in America. The Democrat Party is their home. Small but there. Unfortunately, the Presidency and Senate are being led by them. Your taxation plan has numerous Bills just waiting for a majority to pass. Oh yes.

IMO You have failed to adequately address the stated points in the original post.

How are your responses not a fairly good example of the use of a straw man fallacy in addressing the points in the original post?

 

[qdg2]

IMO You have failed to adequately address the stated points in the original post.

How are your responses not a fairly good example of the use of a straw man fallacy in addressing the points in the original post?

Let's review: You basically think rich folks are the scourge of America. Therefore, you want tax them into submission upwards of 100%. I'm confident that's your premise. Rich bad. Taking to give to someone else....good.

Ok.

Oxford-Straw Man: Intentionally misrepresented proposition. Straw Man: A person regarded as having no substance or integrity(oops).

Your viewpoint is communistic/socialistic/liberal...really not debatable.

I've related this fact from the very beginning.

I and the other few conservatives have adequately addressed your points as communistic/socialistic/liberal. All very bad policies and are destructive and the true scourge of the USA and frankly, the world.

You've admitted to not being direct in your answers(see definitions above)....I am constantly being criticized and banned for being too direct(settled history). Clear enough?

A common straw man example: Hamas kills 1400 women and children, MSNBC blames Trump and Russian collusion.....

What you call straw man....is actually disagreement about your original premise. Most(if not all) of the responses are negative and think your idea is really bad and destructive. Your idea has been tried and is directly responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths(communism)(confiscation at the point of a gun). Very few Americans think communism is a great idea. Very few.