I agree, but what goes around comes around.
What did DumBama threaten businesses with if they didn't provide employer sponsored healthcare coverage to their employees? Not only healthcare, but with his vote buying riders like birth control?
But that wasn't enough. He also raped taxpayers of their income tax return if THEY didn't have coverage; as if they didn't have enough financial problems as it was.
The liberals sure didn't mind that. In fact, they reelected him afterward. Now they are coming to the aid of Delta because using tax brakes is immoral, unconstitutional and over powering.
The thing with leftists is that Montrovant wrote that all up as if he's reasonable and balanced and this is a serious issue to him. Pogo and dblack thank him for imparting such an eloquent justification for how the GA legislature was wrong.
And yet if we switched parties, the three of them would all switch sides. The argument meant nothing to any of them. It was just a homework assignment in a rhetoric class.
That's why you can't get anywhere debating them. You can destroy their argument, like you did. But tomorrow they're going to argue whatever position benefits the Democrat party too.
And they keep blowing off the point that it's foolish for big corporations to get so directly involved in politics. Again if we switched sides, they would suddenly get it
You talk about not being able to debate with me, yet you are the one who can't get past the assumption that I am a "leftist" and would not feel the same way if a different organization were involved. The problem seems to be your inability to accept that some people are not on one of two political 'sides'.
I mean, dblack? I obviously haven't read nearly all of his posts, but he has always struck me as someone with a libertarian sort of political leaning.
You're arguing the straight down the line leftist view. Positive rights = negative rights and there's nothing stupid about companies jumping in with both feet into a hot political issue. It's not your conclusions, it's that you see nothing but the leftist view.
On dblack, he does that. When you talk philosophy, he is a libertarian. When you talk positions, he's a leftist.
I don't know how he reconciles claiming he is for individual liberty but he's sympathetic to leftist authoritarianism. And I didn't randomly pull him in. He was clicking positive on the leftist views here. How does a libertarian not support gun rights? It's not possible.
Gun rights are about authoritarian leftist government, and no one knows that better than leftists
This issue is not about gun rights. Is that what you think I have been arguing? That I am opposed to gun rights?
That comment was about dblack if you read more closely. But that is the point I made. You're not just agreeing with the leftist position, but you're doing nothing but agreeing with their arguments. If your view is not theirs, it's reasonable to say you agree with their position but not all their views. But if you won't agree with anything but leftist views, why would anyone think you're not a leftist?
For example, I am very pro-military, but I'm against the wars in the middle east (unlike Republicans). So I root for the troops even when they're there (unlike leftists) and blame the politicians for sending them.
Another example. I'm pro-choice, but against Rowe v. Wade because it's made up Constitutional law.
Of course partisans on both sides think I belong to the other side, but if you read my positions they aren't one side or the other. You blow off every point not left and and are arguing nothing but left positions. That's the difference. Sure I can see not Republican and not leftists, but you have to argue that and you're not.
BTW, leftists all the time say they're not leftist
