at first i thought you were just being intentionally obtuse in the classic Reddit™ argument style where you don’t really understand how to back up a position, so you just disagree with everything the other person says
but now i’m slightly concerned at your apparent inability to like…comprehend words…?
e.g., i’ve said:
you don’t have any problem with corporate influence over what children learn in schools
most people would actually find that statement easy to disagree with. very easy, in fact.
but you’re really seeming to struggle for some reason
are you like…okay?
(in case you somehow missed it the numerous other times i’ve clarified, we’re discussing whether or not propagandizing to children is a good thing or not…at least we were until you started just straight up inventing my side of the conversation)
First I would have the FCC reign in Fox News disinformation because we’ll probably never get anywhere when 100 million Americans are being brainwashed daily
Campaign finance reform
Term limits and maybe age limits in public office
Ranked voting to help get rid of the two party system
It would be great to somehow change corporate governance to require them to prioritize all stakeholders and not just shareholders but I don’t know how to do this
Maybe a requirement for publicly traded companies to have one seat on the board of directors be elected by the employees to represent their interests, perhaps a requirement that maybe 10% of shares issued and outstanding be owned by said employees
Disappointing. I thought that’s a pretty reasonable start.
Sounds like you’re against private schools (corporate owned) and deductions for charity contributions (unpopular opinion).
OP has nothing to do with tax. My original point. (I think, it’s been a lot of tiresome bickering with you and you’re too far gone.)
You’re angry about education policy and corporate governance, not tax policy. Get your act straight before you go talking shit about stuff you don’t understand.
Get your act straight before you go talking shit about stuff you don’t understand.
this is amazing, are you a real person?
you’re still yet to manage to even disagree with any statement i’ve made and you’re still coming up with gold like this
i’m going to give you a step by step, so that you can actually manage to make an argument (past whining about how being an expert on tax makes you an expert on a discussion you don’t even believe is about tax)
I disagree with every bullet point because this comic isn’t about tax. If you would stop being such a knucklehead and respond to MY bullet points maybe you’d see we actually do have common ground. This isn’t a tax issue. I don’t know how to be more clear than that.
I just don’t understand what your point is besides being a contrarian asshole for its own sake. This comic has nothing to do with tax. It is mistitled. You are complaining about the wrong thing. You keep talking and say nothing. You’re just pissed off at “corporations” in general. I am too. I’m sick of being squeezed for every penny I’ve got. But this comic isn’t a problem or solution involving tax. You’re just completely wrong and misguided. I really wish you could see that but you are intent on arguing for its own sake. It’s so incredibly frustrating. I’ve offered my suggestions for starting to come up with solutions and you won’t even read or respond. You’re just so stubborn it’s impossible to get through. I’m really trying here and you just refuse to budge. It’s actually really impressive.
that propagandizing children is bad? and that “i see no issues with an incentive structure to propagandize children” is orthogonal to that
besides being a contrarian asshole for its own sake
says the person seemingly taking the position “propagandizing children is good, actually”
I’ve offered my suggestions for starting to come up with solutions
solutions to what? this entire conversation is about working out whether or not propagandizing children is a bad thing or not. if it’s not a problem, which somehow seems to be your stance on this, then there’s nothing to come up with a solution to
I’m really trying here
you haven’t answered a single question i’ve asked you, nor have you disagreed with a single thing i’ve said, other than just now when you disagreed that tax cuts incentivize behavior
i don’t think you’ve even stated a position other than “you’re wrong” with no further elaboration
your contributions to this conversation almost entirely consist of trying to change the subject to talk about something else
i’m not sure “I’m really trying here” is a particularly apt description
at first i thought you were just being intentionally obtuse in the classic Reddit™ argument style where you don’t really understand how to back up a position, so you just disagree with everything the other person says
but now i’m slightly concerned at your apparent inability to like…comprehend words…?
e.g., i’ve said:
most people would actually find that statement easy to disagree with. very easy, in fact.
but you’re really seeming to struggle for some reason
are you like…okay?
(in case you somehow missed it the numerous other times i’ve clarified, we’re discussing whether or not propagandizing to children is a good thing or not…at least we were until you started just straight up inventing my side of the conversation)
No comment regarding any of this?
Disappointing. I thought that’s a pretty reasonable start.
Sounds like you’re against private schools (corporate owned) and deductions for charity contributions (unpopular opinion).
OP has nothing to do with tax. My original point. (I think, it’s been a lot of tiresome bickering with you and you’re too far gone.)
You’re angry about education policy and corporate governance, not tax policy. Get your act straight before you go talking shit about stuff you don’t understand.
no, because it’s not relevant?
this is amazing, are you a real person?
you’re still yet to manage to even disagree with any statement i’ve made and you’re still coming up with gold like this
i’m going to give you a step by step, so that you can actually manage to make an argument (past whining about how being an expert on tax makes you an expert on a discussion you don’t even believe is about tax)
I disagree with every bullet point because this comic isn’t about tax. If you would stop being such a knucklehead and respond to MY bullet points maybe you’d see we actually do have common ground. This isn’t a tax issue. I don’t know how to be more clear than that.
given that one of the bulletpoints is this:
you are either very bad at the thing you claim to be an expert in, or you don’t fully understand the meaning of the word “disagree”
I just don’t understand what your point is besides being a contrarian asshole for its own sake. This comic has nothing to do with tax. It is mistitled. You are complaining about the wrong thing. You keep talking and say nothing. You’re just pissed off at “corporations” in general. I am too. I’m sick of being squeezed for every penny I’ve got. But this comic isn’t a problem or solution involving tax. You’re just completely wrong and misguided. I really wish you could see that but you are intent on arguing for its own sake. It’s so incredibly frustrating. I’ve offered my suggestions for starting to come up with solutions and you won’t even read or respond. You’re just so stubborn it’s impossible to get through. I’m really trying here and you just refuse to budge. It’s actually really impressive.
that propagandizing children is bad? and that “i see no issues with an incentive structure to propagandize children” is orthogonal to that
says the person seemingly taking the position “propagandizing children is good, actually”
solutions to what? this entire conversation is about working out whether or not propagandizing children is a bad thing or not. if it’s not a problem, which somehow seems to be your stance on this, then there’s nothing to come up with a solution to
you haven’t answered a single question i’ve asked you, nor have you disagreed with a single thing i’ve said, other than just now when you disagreed that tax cuts incentivize behavior
i don’t think you’ve even stated a position other than “you’re wrong” with no further elaboration
your contributions to this conversation almost entirely consist of trying to change the subject to talk about something else
i’m not sure “I’m really trying here” is a particularly apt description