- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I'm sorry but I never used those words.
:roll:
Then you shouldn't have argued with me. But you did:
Ah, the infamous "gap between the rich and the poor," as though that in and of itself is meaningful, much less the debate-ender some seem to think it is.
It actually is, and why there is some 47% not paying income taxes.
So, it "actually is" what? In and of itself meaningful, or a debate-ender (in which case it would have to be in and of itself meaningful)?
You say I'm "mistaken" and presenting a "strawman," so you tell me, big guy -- what "is" it?
In fact in many posts I've noted other factors as well. And you have yet address the point. I'm willing to bet you never will.
Address what "point"? The tax structure? I did that many posts ago. It's a red herring. Dude, look -- "uh-HUHH!!!" isn't an argument no matter how many times you try to make it one.
Last edited: