shakran

Earlier you complained that we can't trust the democrats "(most of whom have not read the bill)" to be honest about whether or not the bill will harm us economically. Yet you have not read the bill, so how can we trust you to be honest about it either?


You have not read the bill, and therefore you do not know that. You only know what some talking heads, most of whom I would wager have also not read the bill, are telling you to believe about the bill.


So far the entirety of your arguments in this thread have amounted to stuff you say you think you heard someone on one of 4 cable news talk show networks say, or stuff that you admit to having made up. How are we to take your side seriously if you cannot bring one actual, hard fact to the table?


And then as you said earlier, you would not believe them because "they haven't read the bill."

I find it interesting that you can predict the outcome of a piece of legislation which you have not read and about which you have no first hand knowledge. The only other people I know of who make such claims have coins hanging off their shawls and stare into crystal balls all day.

We are being honest. We just aren't giving you the answer you want to hear - an answer based on your preconceived notions about a subject to which you have admitted knowing nothing factual about.


I won't put it in such crass terms, but you are making impassioned arguments about a topic that you admit you not only don't know about, but have no intention of finding out about. What would you call it?