@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:Well, Dave that's where you are wrong.
See I could care less if you agree with me or not.
How much
less coud u
CARE ?
Ceili wrote:I was not rude to him until he was rude to me and others.
I questioned his reasoning but then, like you, he quickly proved that
if we didn't agree with him I was a crackpot liberal.. Your favourite dirty word.
Well, liberal mean deviated or
distorted.
That 's not always good.
Someone who deviates from his contractual duty to u,
in doing so may well
CHEAT u; that 's bad.
On the other hand, when Rudolf Hess deviated from nazism
and when Boris Yeltsin deviated from communism, those were
GOOD things.
Ceili wrote:I invite you to reread his posts. I'm sure you'll see that your new friend is not the warmest guy on the board.
What he fails to understand stand is that government coffers don't grow on their own.
If his business gets a tax break, and a thousand people get welfare,
they all take from the same pot.
People have the natural right to keep their own property.
NO ONE has a moral
right to welfare.
Its charity; the same as if your dad gives u present for your birthday.
He
CAN do it, if he wants to, but he has no duty to do so.
On the other hand, your dad has no right to steal your property.
Ceili wrote:They all have their hands in the big cookie jar.
The average middle class tax must make up the shortfall.
not if spending is cut
to abide the deficit
Again: the charity cases have
NO right to the handouts that thay get.
I have no duty to get ripped off by government for the benefit
of financial losers and the federal government was never granted power
to rip off the rich or middle classes to aid the poor. That can only be done by
USURPATION
with
the same authority as a schoolyard bully.
