I pissed your ...
What now?
Yet, you've been pretty quick to label me a few times here. I'd call that a rash judgment.
Just so we're clear here. When it comes to fiscal matters, you're more than welcome to call me conservative. I prefer—and this is the party with which I'm officially registered—Libertarian. When it comes to a lot of social issues, I have no issue with being labeled liberal.
It's really, really easy to understand where I'm coming from in today's political climate.
- Stay out of my personal life.
- Stay out of my family's life.
- Stay out of my business.
All of of those have been encroached on by the last Administration. As I see it, based on facts we see in history, staying with the Democratic party would have continued such a course.
As to your point about my having no comments on those remarks. I actually have, in this very thread. "There is no cause or logical reason to wallow around in the mud, assume a child like attitude, and call you stupid or anything akin to that." Why on earth would I choose to even get into a discussion like that?
This may be considered elitist: if so, so be it. I consider myself to be above such nonsense and make a conscious choice not to get involved with such petty meanderings.
So, after reading and quoting where I said I don't read the comments of two publications—one labeled right wing, the other left wing—you choose to try to direct me to the Chicago Tribune? Independent thought and convictions, my friend. I don't see the need to use someone else's opinions to substantiate my own.
Now, I'll certainly give credit where it's due. The Tribune did endorse Gary Johnson in the last presidential cycle and a lot of his belief's mirror mine.
What I find ironic here is the article you've cited mentions tax credits as a way to pay for the Infrastructure improvements. The assertion you made earlier about Republicans opposing Sander's plan? That opposition was based on the plan using tax increases.
I'll admit, I'm a bit curious if you read the article you linked. It touches on a few things like how tax credits to those in the transportation industry lead to returns. It cites how Obama encouraged such from Congress. But, all they (Democratic side) came up with was tax increases. It cites how Hillary supported the same ideals. I'm sure there were a great number of people in America, as well as Capital Hill, who doubted her.
In the end, the article is diseningenous when it says Obama was blocked when in fact it was Sander's proposal that was blocked. The platform I stand on is one that's based on effects I've felt: personally, family wise, and business wise.
Three out of three. That's a pretty solid foundation.
