Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I think it would be more accurate to say that 1) I understand your view but that I can't seem to see how it applies to the real world, and 2) you understand my view but disagree with it.
|
You say #1 as if I don't live in the "real world", which is somewhat insulting. On #2, and I know the problem with the lack of precision in the definition of certain words, like "understanding" - but a person may understand how a bumble bee can fly, but not really understand it. I understand your words, I understand your intent but I do not understand why you think the way you do by making what is simple more complicated than it needs to be. From my point of view you never break an issue down to its most simple common denominator.
Quote:
|
If you need me to clarify my view, let me know. I'll try to keep it simple. Maybe I'll use an example with cats.
|
Perhaps you mean this to be condescending, I am not sure. Or, perhaps this means that you can not see the broader points in my examples, I am not sure. I normally with you assume the latter.
Quote:
|
But you made it sound as though your buy-in was of absolutely no consequence. Do you care to elaborate?
|
My wife has choice. My buy-in has consequence, but in her decision making process those consequence may or may not be important enough to sway her decision. It is my hope that she has concerns for my buy-in, but because she is a free independent person she makes her own decisions. The same is true for me with her. So, to say I am inflexible is not accurate. Again, I don't compromise on us having a cat - I support "us" having a cat. The cat is 100% part of our household. After going through our give and take, I am 100% on-board with the cat in our house. But, to add to you confusion, because I doubt you understand, I am not a cat person - I will never be a cat person.
Quote:
|
Why didn't it happen? Because today's Republicans are more tax adverse than Reagan?
|
If the left took time to understand the issue - the difference is in the level of trust. I simply do not believe the people in Washington today are serious about spending cuts. I believe that if they raise taxes, spending with still go up. That is my primary concern on the tax question in this debate - it boils down to the simple issue of trust - or as Roach would say it is a "religious" type issue - 100% emotion based. I tell you that, I have told you that, yet it is ignored. If I knew your issue with me was trust, the first think I do is address that. Real world stuff. Pretty simple stuff. It is how stuff gets done. Put issues on the table and work through them! Obama failed.