I think you misunderstood. He was asking whp we need a Truth in Parody law. Or maybe it was whp needs a Truth in Parody law.

.........the "o" is right next to the "p" on the keyboard..........


...........but, you already knew that.

The atmosphere of business needs roads and bridges and hospitals and schools. It's a prerequisite. However a business can fail with great infrastructure and another could succeed with little infrastructure. If a business succeeds or fails has little to do with infrastructure by comparison to what actions or inactions the business owner themselves takes. The road is traveled by more failed businesses than successful ones. The road itself does not build the business- the owner does that. Since the road leads to more failures than successes should we then claim the road builders owe the failed business owners? It's the exact same logic and same situation you are using to say the successful ones owe the road builders ... .

Did he draw you in from his office?

So if road builders are due X from successful businesses then unsuccessful business owners are due X(+/-Y) from road builders - right?

I know that this was offered to explain your previous comment that "roads and the bridges had about as much to do with the success of the business as the failure of any given business," but I don't see the logic. Obama says that successful businesses benefit from public investment in schools, infrastructure, etc. Does this post attempt to refute that point? If so, I am not following the argument.

BC said the game was over a while back. Why don't we go with that? I'm sure we can find other things to argue about.

Good gawd, how did you know that? I got it, you're able to peer through my monitor and look at my keyboard.

Amazing.

Or wait, you have your own keyboard and you looked at it?

Nah. Too easy.

I can.........and I have.

The argument is simple: If road builders are claiming they are obligated more money than they were paid initially because the road led to a successful business than that same road is also obligated for the money spent/lost on unsuccessful businesses. You can't say it's good for the goose and bad for the gander.


Really this logic of yours means that the road builders pay is dependent on the future success of businesses that locate on or close to that road. The pay they initially receive is fluid. If that's going to be the case then let it be the case- my logic would be the same as your but takes the logic to it's logical conclusion: if the pay is fluid depending on the success of future businesses then it should be fluid on the failure as well.

However that is just wealth redistribution. The road's expenses are finite and if the road builder is in the business to make a profit then like everyone else they need to do so at the time of monetary exchange- the time they are paid. The store you bought something from cannot come to you some undetermined time later and claim you owe them more for the purchase. Investors cannot claim they are owed more money for a financial instrument they sold earlier. The road builder cannot tell people and businesses who succeed or fail on that road that they owe him unless those people came to a prior agreement regarding said success or failure.

Would you forget about the GD roads..............

We conclusively proved that the roads have nothing to do with it. Obama's intent is to take some money from those who built their own businesses because he believes they "owe" the government some type of "debt" for which they need to repay.

This is the classic liberal approach to distributing the wealth. Heavily tax those folks who earn decent money and give it to those who can't or won't. It's been going on for generations and the GOP will fight it tooth and nail because the GOP is supported by these individuals who did manage to be quite successful.

The argument of Honus is disingenuous, at best, and I'm sure he's well aware of it.

I look at logical things and take them to the end of the logic- if it makes sense there then it makes sense period. If it does not make sense at the conclusion then the logic is immediately suspect and most likely is faulty logic. I took the logic from Honus to it's conclusion and it's faulty unless he agrees the road builders would owe something to the failed businesses. The logic he espouses fails and his case is lost.

I see you're of the curved variant. Just don't let her know where the "end" key is

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Does that mean we can quit talking about this?

This would only apply if his premise that Obama simply wants the successful businessman to pay for the roads is valid.

We conclusively proved that the roads have nothing to do with Obama's position, and, therefore, you can just forget about the GD roads!!!