In a message dated 8/3/01 9:58:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Like I said consistent not cynical. By definition, the core values are
what
>you believe them to be and are not open to honest disagreement. So anyone
who
>does disagree can only be doing so for tainted reasons. It is the failure
to
>grant that other opnions may be honestly held and acted upon that the most
>infuriating aspect of your moral absolutism.
Well, I disagree with that assessment. People usually don't disagree
with me for tainted reasons, more usually it is because they haven't seen
the truth that I have seen yet. :)
I was speaking about politicians actions not whether or not individuals on
this list or elsewhere have yet to see the truth. What I find unique in many
of your arguements is the almost complete identity between truth and the
republican agenda.
In this particular case, Democrats were quite open about two things:
1) They wanted to spend more more money on agriculture, even though they
have argued very recently that there is not money available for tax cuts or
Republican spending priorities
2) They think that agriculture prices are too low and require government
correction
Why is hypocrtical to argue about how our resources are to be apportioned?
One of the reasons for not doing a massive tax cut is so that there is money
to spend on favored programs. The dems argued that the cut was too much.
Having lost this battle are they to simply give up on the rest of their
agenda?
I have already pointed out the hypocrisy of #1.
As far as #2, Democrats legitimately want to help farnmers by raising
prices. I am simply pointing out the consequences of this action that they
are neglecting to consider.
>>
As you have neglected to consider the consequences of many of the policies
that you favor.
