Harry Pollard wrote: > Remember, I coined the term "Fat Cats" for people who benefit from > privilege. This includes everyone who benefits not just the rich.
How much sense does it make to call *poor* people "*Fat* Cats" ? > I also pointed out that the attack on privilege is watered down by giving > "countervailing privileges" to the underprivileged. Give a small privilege > to them and they join in the effort to defend privilege generally. As long as privileges exist, they should be distributed fairly. (Anyway, it can be doubted that "privilege" is an appropriate term to describe poor people's incomes...) What you advocate, however, is unfair distribution (and even increasing) of privileges for the *fattest* cats -- by advocating WTO, GATS, multi-million salaries for CEOs and "sportsmen", etc. > I said: "Chris' remark exposes the shallow thinking of the left, who have > let us down on every issue. They still support class conflict - rich > against poor . . . . " > > Chris replied "Harry is misrepresenting my case . . . . " then > proceeded to say. > > "The goal is not to hand out gifts for nothing, but quite the opposite: To > prevent the rich from being handed out gifts for nothing! That's the basic > issue that Harry still refuses to grasp. Talk about shallow thinking!" > > So, he says he doesn't support class conflict, then he supports class > conflict. Talk about shallow thinking! Here you're misrepresenting my case again. What do my statements have to do with "rich *against* poor" ? Rather, that is *your* approach. I seems that with such word games you're trying to deflect readers' attention from the substance of this thread, such as my debunking of your wrong claims re. GATS Article I(3) and the "Erhart free market revolution". Your silence on the substantial issues is deafening. As is usual from fatcat defenders... Chris
